• 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.

akyron said:
You have a large enough body of work..near 35000 blatherings to detect your bent.



What is a non argument is begging for a change because you did not get to tell a bunch of others how to live their lives...this time.
Click to expand...

Your rudeness isn't a good replacement for an argument. What is your position on the exact reason for the existence of the electoral college? State it clearly, please. Remember: this isn't about me.
 
Cardinal said:
People who make the argument that the electoral college is good because it prevents urban centers from determining the path of the country need to explain why it's better that rural areas determine the path of the country instead.
Click to expand...
The answer to your question can be found in, New York City running the entire state of New York. Whats good for the city isnt whats always good for the state, but due to the population density it runs that way and the rest of state is at the mercy of the city dwellers. Are country was setup this way to prevent a pure democracy to save us from the downfalls of a pure democratic government.
 
jdog21 said:
The answer to your question can be found in, New York City running the entire state of New York. Whats good for the city isnt whats always good for the state, but due to the population density it runs that way and the rest of state is at the mercy of the city dwellers. Are country was setup this way to prevent a pure democracy to save us from the downfalls of a pure democratic government.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why it's good for the rural dwellers to determine policy for the city dwellers.
 
Cardinal said:
That doesn't explain why it's good for the rural dwellers to determine policy for the city dwellers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Nor does it explain why people in some states should have three to four times more weight and power behind their vote for President than Americans in other states have.
 
Cardinal said:
That doesn't explain why it's good for the rural dwellers to determine policy for the city dwellers.
Click to expand...

One prevents mob rule and the other causes mob rule, mob rule leads to tyranny. So the question isnt why minority rule is better but rather which one does less harm.
 
Cardinal said:
the exact reason for the existence of the electoral college?
Click to expand...

At the constitutional convention they tried several tacts..

1.Let congress choose the president.....Rejected...Why? Too much opportunity for corruption and interference by foreign powers.
2.Let state legislatures elect the president....Rejected...Why? Federal authority would erode as a President would then be vulnerable to coercion by state legislatures.
3.Direct Popular Vote....Rejected....Why? People would want to vote for a "favorite son" from their state or region. No popular majority or again elected by a popular region with little to no regard for smaller less populated states...
4.The "committe of eleven" proposed an indirect election. A buffer so to speak(hamilton as I referred to earlier). The idea was close to how we get a pope with their college of cardinals(heh).. Hopefully the most knowledgeable and informed individual from the states select the president based on merit without regard to region..

The origin of this system can be traced to the Centurial Assemblage of the Roman Republic. Though they were based on wealth not merit.

As the founding fathers were generally well educated it is no surprise classical systems that worked well were used as models.

There have been 2 different designs ( Article II section 1 is the first) and several federal and state legal changes to this system but none have strayed too far from the intent of fairness and to be above suspicion.

The election of 1800 was troublesome however with Burr and Jefferson...It took them 36 attempts to resolve a tie.....This is how we get the 12th amendment.

After observing the French revolution and its quick degeneration to dictatorship people grew to appreciate the merits of the Electoral College.

By eroding the trust and declaring our system illegitimate we return to a time in the 1920s and 1930s where the proponents of the fascist and nazis were parroting the same thing as a prelude to their rise to power.

Not a perfect system...Just better than anything else we have tried or know to try...yet.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For those of you that want to get rid of the EC.

<snip>

In summary: We the People get to decide how our government is run via the Legislative Branch of our government by electing the Senators and Congressmen. The States gets to decide who to pick to execute the laws that is made by the Senate and House of Representatives. We are not One Country. We are several Member States acting in concert for the defense of all.
Click to expand...

Very well said. The EC is a reflection of the core concept of Separation of Powers. It keeps any one piece of our nation from having too much power and that includes The People. It allows the Legislative branch to be the expression of voice of the People and the Executive to be the expression of the voice of the States. Together, they choose the Judicial as a joint effort to oversee all.
 
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...

The President is NOT elected by the People, that position is elected by THE STATES. It has NOTHING to do with the votes of the People and everything to do with the choices of the States.
 
Cardinal said:
That doesn't explain why it's good for the rural dwellers to determine policy for the city dwellers.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear that there is no actual reason besides wanting more power than is rightly deserved.
 
faithful_servant said:
The President is NOT elected by the People, that position is elected by THE STATES. It has NOTHING to do with the votes of the People and everything to do with the choices of the States.
Click to expand...

Then why bother with the electoral college in the first place? Why not just have the president appointed by the Senate then?
 
Carjosse said:
Then why bother with the electoral college in the first place? Why not just have the president appointed by the Senate then?
Click to expand...

It's a way to balance out the influence of each state. "Bigger" states get more of a say than smaller states. Look at it the terms of the OP - if these were truly nations, it would make perfect sense for the larger nations to have more of say.
 
Carjosse said:
That is the whole point the EC should represent the people but it doesn't all it does is make the votes of people in certain states count for more. California and New York are not negating anyone, they are voting for how they want to be president just like every other American and they deserve the same say as everyone else in the country. The electoral college is the system distorting the votes. Why does the fact that California has more votes than 26 other states matter? They are Americans too. The electoral college should really just be abolished, just because the founding fathers created it does not mean it is good and relevant to the modern era.

A candidate can win the electoral college and become president with only 22% of the popular vote, that should tell you how horrible the system is. Having the electoral college defeats the entire purpose of having a popular vote in the first place, if you are just going to ignore the majority of voters anyways why even bother?
Click to expand...

As I said you don't get it. Part of the EC represents the people the other part represents the states themselves.
They get a say in the election. Their state gets to vote for who hey want as president.
Their electors go to the person that wins.

Nope it doesn't distort it. It ensures that all states not just 2 have a say in the election.

You don't like it because it stops the abuse of the popular vote and gives people an equal voice.

Nope the system isn't horrible and since when has anyone with just 22% of the popular vote?
Yes because our founders saw massive issues with the popular vote.

The majority of voters is not ignored. They determine who wins their state.
Whoever wins the majority of the states wins the presidency. It makes all states important.
Not just large populous states.

Your so concerned about people vote but want to silence half the country because they don't vote like you think they should.
 
Helix said:
hopefully the SCOTUS will stop them from political gerrymandering or at least make it more difficult to cheat.
Click to expand...

Not a SCOTUS problem. It would be a state issue not a federal one.
 
ludin said:
We will see. They will have a hard time overturning a states right to define their districts.
It is interesting that they are arguing a 1st amendment issue though.
Click to expand...

yeah, i'll be interested to see how the cases are decided.
 
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...

The existance of the EC means that everyone's vote counts and everyone is represented.
 
CMPancake said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nobody was crying when Bill Clinto was elected with under 50% of the popular vote.
 
Carjosse said:
That formula is ridiculous. California has ~12.5% of the population of the US but they only get 10% of the EC votes, there is under representation but smaller states are extremely over represented because of three EC vote minimum that are taken from the larger states. There is more people for each electoral college vote in California, therefore their votes count for less. How can votes form large areas "distort" the results, they are votes too. Whether you like it or not Americans in urban centres matter too.
Click to expand...

Without the EC folks outside those areas wouldn't matter at all. It would eventually lead to a civil war. Just like 1775.
 
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...
Because that's how it works. It was all explained to you in the OP. If the EC had not been accepted, the smaller states would have never ratified the Constitution. The Citizen is important but the country was able to exist because it guaranteed the States rights as well as the citizens rights. Mass rule is NOT the law of the land. It IS however the law of the state.
 
apdst said:
Nobody was crying when Bill Clinto was elected with under 50% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton may not have won 50% of the votes, but he still won the popular vote. I don't see how the percentage is entirely relevant seeing as Clinton won that election by 8.2 million votes over Bob Dole.
 
CMPancake said:
Bill Clinton may not have won 50% of the votes, but he still won the popular vote. I don't see how the percentage is entirely relevant seeing as Clinton won that election by 8.2 million votes over Bob Dole.
Click to expand...

A majority of the country didn't want him to be president; either time. Without the EC, there would have been a runoff between Bush/Perot and Dole/Perot.

Like I said, no one was crying about the EC, then.

The sudden opposition to the EC is coming from the sore losers who are butthurt about President Trump winning the election.
 
CMPancake said:
Bill Clinton may not have won 50% of the votes, but he still won the popular vote. I don't see how the percentage is entirely relevant seeing as Clinton won that election by 8.2 million votes over Bob Dole.
Click to expand...

Clinton did not win the popular vote as we do not elect presidents by popular vote. Clinton won the electoral college just like Trump did. There is no popular vote system in place for electing presidents.
 
apdst said:
A majority of the country didn't want him to be president; either time. Without the EC, there would have been a runoff between Bush/Perot and Dole/Perot.
Click to expand...

Without the Electoral College, Bill Clinton still would have beat out Bob Dole by 8.2 million votes.

apdst said:
Like I said, no one was crying about the EC, then.
Click to expand...

And as we know, the GOP were completely amicable towards Clinton during his Presidency and to this day hold no ill will for beating out Dole in the Election...

apdst said:
The sudden opposition to the EC is coming from the sore losers who are butthurt about President Trump winning the election.
Click to expand...

The opposition wasn't "sudden" there was plenty of criticism and controversy back in 2000 when GWB won the election despite losing the popular vote. For two centuries of modern history, Republicans have been the only ones to benefit from the EC system. Which explains why Republicans so fervently believe in the Electoral College. The last Republican President to win the popular vote was Ronald freaking Reagan.

ObamacareFail said:
Clinton did not win the popular vote as we do not elect presidents by popular vote.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. Clinton won the popular vote, but he also won the Electoral College. He won the election by winning the EC, but despite Apdst's weak attempt to muddy the waters, Clinton still won the popular vote.

ObamacareFail said:
Clinton won the electoral college just like Trump did. There is no popular vote system in place for electing presidents.
Click to expand...

Astute as always, ObamacareFail. Way to keep up with context of the conversation there, bud.
 
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?
Click to expand...
I know I'm late to the game, but....

It means jack.

The President ought to be elected by a straight majority of the voters. It should be the will of the people, not the will of rural gerrymandered electoral districts.

I really don't care what a bunch of dead, white, aristocratic, wealth farmers turned politicians originally intended. They are no longer with us. They don't have to live with the consequences.

Fortunately, those politicians set up a mechanism by which we can change the Constitution. They allowed slavery; we changed that. They didn't guarantee women the right to vote; we changed that. They didn't set term limits for the Presidency; we changed that. They didn't have direct election of Senators; we changed that. Thus, if we want to get rid of the Electoral College, we have both a process and a right to do so.

The Electoral College has long outlived its usefulness. Fortunately, all it will take is for a Democrat to win the EC and lose the popular vote in order for most Republicans to agree. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom