• 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.

ludin said:
It is up to states how their districts are drawn. Federal government has nothing to do with it.
Petition your state to change it.
Click to expand...

it should be mandated at the federal level.
 
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...

That is exactly what happens when it comes to surface transportation funding and spending. Those that pay the most taxes (motor fuels and vehicle registration) get the least back.

Diversions from Highway Spending. Congress and the states divert roughly 25 percent of the Highway Trust Fund spending to non-highway projects that are not federal priorities.[12] The largest of these diversions is the Mass Transit Account, which spent some $8 billion in 2014 on buses, rail, streetcars, and other projects that should fall under the responsibility of municipal or state governments. Other programs include the Transportation Alternatives Program, which spent $820 million in 2014 on undertakings such as sidewalks, bike paths, scenic overlooks, vegetation management, and recreational trails.[13] These diversions sap funds that could be spent on the highway system—the purpose of the highway trust fund—and shortchange the motorists and shippers that pay directly into the system through fuel taxes.
Click to expand...

Highway Trust Fund Basics: A Primer on Federal Surface Transportation Spending | The Heritage Foundation
 
Helix said:
it should be mandated at the federal level.
Click to expand...

No....actually it shouldnt. The House Representatives are elected by the voters in the individual states. Why should the feds have any control over it? That is a power relegated to the states, not the feds.
 
akyron said:
Ahh so not getting your way each and every time is being punished? Welcome to life man.
Click to expand...

Are you professionally obtuse or are you just a gifted natural?

holbritter said:
I don't think it does

Today, each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (two in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. For example, Kansas has two senators and four U.S. representatives for a total of six electoral votes.

Overall, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. In the 2016 presidential election, highly populated California had the most sway with 55 electoral votes; other less populated states, such as Montana, had as few as three electoral votes [source: CNN].

https://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college1.htm
Click to expand...

Right, that is a good summery of the Electoral College system, yes. But lets look at the raw numbers of what the EC does to disenfranchise voters.

California has 55 Electoral College votes for a single state. Yes that is a lot, but if Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Missouri vote for the same party, their votes equal to 55 electoral college votes. In the 2016 election, 8,753,788 voters in California voted for Clinton. Meanwhile the five previous states I listed have a total vote count of 8,333,159 to win the same amount of Electoral College points. That's 762,738 Democratic voters that were told their vote doesn't matter because they opted to live in big cities instead of spreading themselves out in the rust belt. That's not fair to almost a million voters. The Electoral College removes voting power and say from potentially millions of voters solely on where they voted, not how they voted.
 
akyron said:
Not less. You have a say no matter where you live.
Click to expand...

But the vote of a Texan or Californian is worth far less than that of someone in smaller state because of how electoral college votes are distributed to smaller states. California and Texas are missing a very large of electoral college votes for their population that were then distributed to the smaller ones which are are over represented. Take Wyoming, it should really only have 1 EC vote but it has 3 due to EC rules those two extra votes are taken from states like California and Texas.

It is just how the math works smaller states have far less people voting for each EC vote, making their vote worth more. Your vote is worth less than someone's vote in Indiana, Wymoing, or Alaska.
 
ludin said:
They don't count for less. They count as 1 vote in their state.
Most states only get 1 rep because all states get one rep.

Actually it is the majority of people in each states that determine the election.

Now if you don't like how you state hands out EC's then petition them to change it.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the number of EC votes each state gets, smaller states are over-represented and larger are underrepresented as result people's votes in larger states are worth less.
 
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...

Which means that low populations areas get to hold the rest of the country hostage. But I guess that's okay, for some reason.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For those of you that want to get rid of the EC. ......
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe Republicans would of been happy if members of the electoral college would of voted for Hillary if their states went for Trump. You are ignoring half the reason (or the majority of the reason) for the electoral college in the first place. The electoral college was a buffer against the popular vote and gave those in power a last way to decide who ultimately took the White House. Yeah, Republicans haven't won a popular vote for President since 92 yet have split the white house with Democrats during that time. It's not hard to see why Republicans are so pro-electoral college.

If Hillary was in the White House now due to the electoral college fulfilling their other purpose as last check against popular vote, I'm sure they would be less willing to support this antiquated buffer.
 
ObamacareFail said:
No....actually it shouldnt. The House Representatives are elected by the voters in the individual states. Why should the feds have any control over it? That is a power relegated to the states, not the feds.
Click to expand...

it should be done federally because both halves of our artificial binary system are too tribal to be trusted with something this important at the local level.

ObamacareFail said:
That could still be manipulated by parties in power.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but manipulation should be made as difficult for both sides as possible.
 
Carjosse said:
But the vote of a Texan or Californian is worth far less than that of someone in smaller state because of how electoral college votes are distributed to smaller states. California and Texas are missing a very large of electoral college votes for their population that were then distributed to the smaller ones which are are over represented. Take Wyoming, it should really only have 1 EC vote but it has 3 due to EC rules those two extra votes are taken from states like California and Texas.

It is just how the math works smaller states have far less people voting for each EC vote, making their vote worth more. Your vote is worth less than someone's vote in Indiana, Wymoing, or Alaska.
Click to expand...

CA and TX get more than 3 extra EC votes just for the number of non-US citizens within their official census state populations. The estimated 12 million illegal aliens, while only a portion of the total 23 million non-US citizens, inside the US are counted when assigning congressional districts and the resulting EC representation. The non-US citizen population in CA is 13% and in TX is 11%.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-ind...n&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}
 
Kal'Stang said:
For those of you that want to get rid of the EC.

The reason that the EC exists is because we are not one whole country. We are a country with States in it. Not county's. Not districts. But States. What exactly does that mean? In order to understand what that means you have to examine history.
Click to expand...

Yes, most people don't realize that state is synonymous with country. We are a federation of many countries.
 
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...

There is a House of Representatives and a Senate by which they can dominate Congress with whatever tyranny and mob rule they see fit.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For those of you that want to get rid of the EC.

The reason that the EC exists is because we are not one whole country. We are a country with States in it. Not county's. Not districts. But States. What exactly does that mean? In order to understand what that means you have to examine history....<rest snipped due to character limit>...
Click to expand...

There is a major problem with your analysis. It is contradicted by some of the very men who wrote the constitution:

Federalist no. 68 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hamilton did not trust that the rabble would make a good choice, and preferred to put the final say in the hands of the elite. In Federalist No. 10, Madison worried that a faction might grow large enough among the general population to push their choice for president based on their special interest.
 
CMPancake said:
That's exactly my point. Why do Republican voters (the minority in the 2016 election) get to decide the Presidential election while the majority of voters are punished just simply testament to the fact they live in large, dense areas?
Click to expand...

I agree.

Say a State has 1 million people in it. 500,001 vote for trump while the other 499,999 vote for Obama now according to the electoral college the 499,999 who voted for Obama just got negated while under the ''popular vote'' the 499,999 votes would've actually counted. Under the popular vote everyone's vote is equal regardless of your geographic location in the USA so it really doesn't matter if some areas are densely populated because tons of people in those areas still vote for the other candidate.

That's how I see it. Now the problem lies in the fact that most people have a ''herd mentality'' where people just obediently accept what's in front of them (pulling up amendments looking at the constitution etc.)
 
Helix said:
it should be done federally because both halves of our artificial binary system are too tribal to be trusted with something this important at the local level.
Click to expand...

The feds having anthing at all to do with it would be quite clearly unconstitutional. Any change would have to be in the states. And each state individually would have to change it's laws if not their state constitution as well. To have the feds do it would take a constitutional amendment that three fourths of the states would have to ratify. I think we both know thats not going to happen. if you feel that strongly about it, start with your own state's politicians.



perhaps, but manipulation should be made as difficult for both sides as possible.
Click to expand...

As long as government at any level is involved, it can easily be manipulated by the party in power.
 
Redress said:
There is a major problem with your analysis. It is contradicted by some of the very men who wrote the constitution:



Hamilton did not trust that the rabble would make a good choice, and preferred to put the final say in the hands of the elite. In Federalist No. 10, Madison worried that a faction might grow large enough among the general population to push their choice for president based on their special interest.
Click to expand...

However Hamilton still expressed his view that the electoral college is superior to the popular vote. What's your point?
 
CMPancake said:
That's exactly my point. Why do Republican voters (the minority in the 2016 election) get to decide the Presidential election while the majority of voters are punished just simply testament to the fact they live in large, dense areas?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that only republicans voted for Trump. Remember those blue firewall states? Trump received a large number of democrat votes from those states. Just as Reagan received many demcorat votes in the 1980 and 1984 elections. Just because your elected politicians are hardcore democrat does not mean all of the voters whoa re registered democrats vote straight down the party line every election.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are assuming that only republicans voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

I implied people who voted Republican in the 2016 election.

ObamacareFail said:
Remember those blue firewall states? Trump received a large number of democrat votes from those states. Just as Reagan received many demcorat votes in the 1980 and 1984 elections. Just because your elected politicians are hardcore democrat does not mean all of the voters whoa re registered democrats vote straight down the party line every election.
Click to expand...

Entirely irrelevant to both my post, and the thread, but okay. Clinton still won more votes than Trump and only lost because of a system that grants voters in swing states absurdly more voting power than voters in states that routinely vote for one party.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For those of you that want to get rid of the EC.

The reason that the EC exists is because we are not one whole country. We are a country with States in it. Not county's. Not districts. But States. What exactly does that mean? In order to understand what that means you have to examine history...
Click to expand...

Just a few corrections.

1. Originally, members of the House were elected by popular vote of the citizens of each State. Senator's were chosen by the Legislatures of each State.

2. While you are correct in that each State was to have a say in the election of the President, it was never one voice one vote. It was always one voice and the number of votes equal to each Senator (2 votes) and each Representative (at least 1 vote) depending on how many Electors each State had. (A minimum of 3 votes, i.e. 2 Senators and 1 Representative).

Other than that, you summarize the idea fairly well.

The people got to elect those who decided their taxes (the House of Representatives). Originally the State Legislatures got to select the Senators who handled declarations of war and monitored diplomacy. The State Electors, chosen by whatever method each Legislature decided, voted on behalf of each State for the President, the Chief Executive of the FEDERAL system of government.

Our nation, despite where so many millennials argue for one person, one vote, was never designed to be a "pure Democracy," because as any student of American history knows...the leaders feared the ever-present dangers behind a Tyranny of the Majority which always eventually accompanies a pure Democracy.

To put it in terms such people might understand. With a Tyranny of the Majority, if most people wanted a "White Power" society (as was evident back during Jim Crow days), there would be no arguments about diversity today because they would never have let anyone immigrate who wasn't ethnically "White."

It is because our Federal system is set up to allow for States to affect the election of the Executive, while the people have control of the Congress, which allows our "United States" to function without constant efforts at secession.

If "small States" were constantly submerged by "big States," we would have frequent revolts and rebellions like any other balkanized nation in history.
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
However Hamilton still expressed his view that the electoral college is superior to the popular vote. What's your point?
Click to expand...

That the reason he gives for the electoral college was not the reason expressed by the founding fathers. What part of my post confused you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom