• 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.

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.

no thanks. they are the ones doing the gerrymandering. it's the same way in every state.

As long as government at any level is involved, it can easily be manipulated by the party in power.

not if we only use census generated population density data to draw the districts. everyone who believes in democracy should oppose gerrymandering.
 
it should be mandated at the federal level.

Why? The constitution gives that power to the states.
Which is how it should be. Why are you so against state sovereignty which is what this country
Was founded on.
 
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.

I am not ignoring anything. The fact you don't understand the composition of the EC vote is not my issue.
The senate doesn't represent the people. It represents the state itself.

All states are equal so you can't count them as representing the people.

The house of reps is what represents the population. Smaller states only get one rep.
No they are not worth less. They are worth one vote in that state.

What you want to say is that the people of CA should weigh more than the people of ND.
that people of CA, NY should tell the rest of us how to vote. Is is exactly what the EC And the constitution
Prevents. It allows the people of CA vote their interest and people in other states to vote theirs.
 
I am not ignoring anything. The fact you don't understand the composition of the EC vote is not my issue.
The senate doesn't represent the people. It represents the state itself.

All states are equal so you can't count them as representing the people.

The house of reps is what represents the population. Smaller states only get one rep.
No they are not worth less. They are worth one vote in that state.

What you want to say is that the people of CA should weigh more than the people of ND.
that people of CA, NY should tell the rest of us how to vote. Is is exactly what the EC And the constitution
Prevents. It allows the people of CA vote their interest and people in other states to vote theirs.

But why are the opinions of those in North Dakota worth more when selecting the president?
 
But why are the opinions of those in North Dakota worth more when selecting the president?

They aren't Last time I checked 53> 1

Which means if you have ca and nd if you win ca you win every time so why bother with nd.

Now if you look at the last election why should CA and NY dictate who is president to the other 48.

Last election CA cast more votes than 28 other states combined.
 
Absent Gerrymandering, how do you propose that Congressional districts be drawn?

To put in as many liberal congresspeople as possible. Draw a rural district with a slice into a major city if it’s too red
 
no thanks. they are the ones doing the gerrymandering. it's the same way in every state.



not if we only use census generated population density data to draw the districts. everyone who believes in democracy should oppose gerrymandering.

Well I don’t believe in democracy, I believe in a constitutional republican so I’m not convinced by your argument
 
Last edited:
Why? The constitution gives that power to the states.
Which is how it should be. Why are you so against state sovereignty which is what this country
Was founded on.

gerrymandering is cheating, and state control of drawing districts hasn't even approached solving the problem. therefore, districts should be drawn federally.
 
Well I don’t believe in democracy, I believe in a constitutional republican so I’m not convinced by your argument

like Tommy Lee Jones, i don't care.
 
They aren't Last time I checked 53> 1

Which means if you have ca and nd if you win ca you win every time so why bother with nd.

Now if you look at the last election why should CA and NY dictate who is president to the other 48.

Last election CA cast more votes than 28 other states combined.

Because more than a tenth of all Americans are Californians. California should of course have a large say in who is president, it is their president too. If you really want equal representation, one vote should be one vote regardless of the state you live in which means getting rid of the electoral college. Texas is also very heavily affected by this, they lose a lot of EC votes to the smaller states as well.

For California to have the representation they should, they need ~65 vs 55 current EC votes. Texas should have ~46 vs its current 38.
 
Last edited:
So you admit that you like the Electoral College because it gives the minority more influence over the Presidential Election not because more people agree with Conservative politics but rather Conservatives just spread themselves out better than the majority voters?

There are a lot of states in the middle of the country

Pick one...bring your friends

Deal with the cold and snow

Maybe you can swing the balance....I wish you luck
 
This is only an issue because Trump won. If that women had won, we would not have heard a peep.

Dozens of threads on the topic from before Trump was elected. For example, this thread from 2008. Not everything is about Trump...
 
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.

There's no reason the people of NYC should get to dictate how the people of Chillicothe, OH, get to live.

We live in a real federal republic. Almost no one else does, and it's baffling to them why we'd like it.
 
There's no reason the people of NYC should get to dictate how the people of Chillicothe, OH, get to live.

We live in a real federal republic. Almost no one else does, and it's baffling to them why we'd like it.

So why should the people in Chillicote and other like them get to decide how New Yorkers live?
 
So why should the people in Chillicote and other like them get to decide how New Yorkers live?

They don't want to. They vote for people who favor less federal power, not more.
 
They don't want to. They vote for people who favor less federal power, not more.

So partisan bull****, as long as the electoral college supports your guy. Why is it okay for rural America to force Trump on New Yorkers but not so for New Yorkers to force Obama on rural America. Whether you like it or not who the president is affects all Americans and all Americans should have an equal say.
 
I just do not see a viable replacement for gerrymandering. Reapportionment is a necessity. And unless someone can come up with a viable way to accomplish reapportionment objectively and without partisan advantage, gerrymandering should remain. At least the it gives the advantage based on state legislative elections.

You do realize most other democracies do not have gerrymandering right?
 
I just do not see a viable replacement for gerrymandering. Reapportionment is a necessity. And unless someone can come up with a viable way to accomplish reapportionment objectively and without partisan advantage, gerrymandering should remain. At least the it gives the advantage based on state legislative elections.

How about a simple rule that no congressional district can have parts of more than one county? It could contain multiple whole counties but may split only one of them.

Preventing nonsense as in the link below (my congressional district) is easy to avoid:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district

That strip contains parts of 5 different counties and two cities (about 80 miles apart) yet contains no whole county.
 
So partisan bull****, as long as the electoral college supports your guy.

Weird, that's not even remotely close to what I said.

Why is it okay for rural America to force Trump on New Yorkers but not so for New Yorkers to force Obama on rural America. Whether you like it or not who the president is affects all Americans and all Americans should have an equal say.

Not considering what President's actual job is, which is to be the chief administrator of a federal union of states, all of which are equal.

But those who voted for Trump, by and large, voted to be left alone, and leave others alone. Those who votes for Hillary, by and large, would rather see the whole country remade in the image of their own politics, whether or not the rest of the country wants it.

You live in a country where you don't vote for your Prime Minister or Crown, so all this righteous talk about "everyone should have equal say" when it comes to choosing the chief executive is more than a little hilarious. If we chose your way, Hillary still would not be President.
 
gerrymandering is cheating, and state control of drawing districts hasn't even approached solving the problem. therefore, districts should be drawn federally.

how would the feds know what to do?
again you still have not argued say states should be stripped of their right to district their state.
We did it in FL just fine. 2 districts had to be redone but other than that everyone else was fine.

2 reps lost their seats when it was redistricted but that was almost expected.
 
Because more than a tenth of all Americans are Californians. California should of course have a large say in who is president, it is their president too.
They do that is why they get 55 electorial votes. 53 of which represent the people of the state which is about 20% of the electoral votes needed to win.

If you really want equal representation, one vote should be one vote regardless of the state you live in which means getting rid of the electoral college. Texas is also very heavily affected by this, they lose a lot of EC votes to the smaller states as well.

that has nothing to do with the presidency in a way. it is one vote. if you cast 1 vote in CA then it counts as 1 vote for your candidate. what CA doesn't get to do is dictate to others who they should vote as president like you want them too.
nope they don't lose EC votes. the only way to lose EC votes is if people move from one state to another.

For California to have the representation they should, they need ~65 vs 55 current EC votes. Texas should have ~46 vs its current 38.

based on what? there is a formula already in place based on the number of seats in the house. that is what you also have to remember. there are only so many
seats available. you don't even live in the US so who cares. here in the US we care that all votes are counted not just those of large urban centers which distort
voting records.
 
So why should the people in Chillicote and other like them get to decide how New Yorkers live?

they don't that is the beauty of the system.
 
I always feel conflicted on the EC issue. I like the idea that it gives a boost to smaller states because it does make candidates come to those states and pay attention to their specific issues. On the other hand, how do you argue against the fact that it does value certain voters over others?
 
So partisan bull****, as long as the electoral college supports your guy. Why is it okay for rural America to force Trump on New Yorkers but not so for New Yorkers to force Obama on rural America. Whether you like it or not who the president is affects all Americans and all Americans should have an equal say.

Umm you really don't know how this works do you?

each state has a number of electors. to be president you must earn at least 270 electoral votes.
each state can also assign their electors anyway they want. most choose to go with a winner take all approach.

The system is designed so that all states are in play. Sure you can just go after the big states but then again
that is not a good tactic as Clinton proved. You need the smaller states to push you over the edge.

Obama kinda of did this before. all american do get an equal say. any vote casts counts towards their candidate in their state.
what you don't get to do is dictate to another state.

a president is the person that appeals to the most people in the most states to get to 270.
 
Back
Top Bottom