• 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:
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...

Why exactly would coyote acme schemes cause so many millions of people to all want to move to an area governed by them? Seems to me that if the laws of a state like Kansas were so awesome it would motivate more people to move to it not away from it.
 
haymarket said:
Actually, Federalist 68 is the clearest and most insightful argument made to the American people and their representatives to support and approve the US Constitution regarding questions about the purpose and operation of the Electoral College and what it gave to Americans in exchange of not having a direct popular election for President.

And it failed us utterly in 2016 and was followed as Hamilton outlined.

It is NOT an Article in the Constitution. This is this - this isn't something else - this is this.
Click to expand...

I would say it is not the EC that has failed this process but the States themselves. When States adopt the "winner take all" system then the choice is taken away from the electors as to who would "best serve" as POTUS. The political parties have bastardized this system so bad as to the point of, one could say, "my vote doesn't count.
 
haymarket said:
Your point about the federal judiciary is taken. But my point holds true for the rest of elected officials in the Executive and Legislative branches.

What so called TYRANNY OF THE 51%?. It does not exist. IS that somehow more objectionable than a supposed TYRANNY OF THE 46%?

How is the winner by most votes suddenly translated into TYRANNY anyways?

Is there something great and noble about a minority supported President rather than a majority supported President?

Your statement no real sense.
Click to expand...

We have a check on our society by not allowing ANY one entity complete power. We keep The People (Congress) in check by the authority of the States (the President) and the States in check by the authority of The People and we make them both work together in the appointment of the judiciary. Do you want just one entity in this nation to have complete control? Should we allow the rights of the minority to be taken away by the majority?? That's what the tyranny of the 51% means - that just because there are more people who think one way than another, that makes them right. Democracy sacrifices the rights of the minority for the demands of the majority. It's only when we put a check on the different entities that constitute this nation that we protect the minority. If the one person majority decides that anyone who doesn't wear blue socks is put to death, then you and your black sock-wearing brethren have just been condemned to death because you are one person less than the blue sock wearers. That's the tyranny of the 51% -to take away the rights of those they disagree with. Having checks in place is what protects the rights of the minority.
 
faithful_servant said:
We have a check on our society by not allowing ANY one entity complete power. We keep The People (Congress) in check by the authority of the States (the President) and the States in check by the authority of The People and we make them both work together in the appointment of the judiciary. Do you want just one entity in this nation to have complete control? Should we allow the rights of the minority to be taken away by the majority?? That's what the tyranny of the 51% means - that just because there are more people who think one way than another, that makes them right. Democracy sacrifices the rights of the minority for the demands of the majority. It's only when we put a check on the different entities that constitute this nation that we protect the minority. If the one person majority decides that anyone who doesn't wear blue socks is put to death, then you and your black sock-wearing brethren have just been condemned to death because you are one person less than the blue sock wearers. That's the tyranny of the 51% -to take away the rights of those they disagree with. Having checks in place is what protects the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

Do people in states run the state with TYRANNY because we have direct popular vote election of the states Executive?

Do people in cities and towns run those areas with TYRANNY because we have direct popular vote election of the cities or towns Executive?

Of course not and the idea ia silly on its face. You have shown no example ever in this nation where the people voting for an executive puts the majority who did so in a catbird seat wrecking TYRANNY upon the minority. Not a single one.
 
Terryj said:
I would say it is not the EC that has failed this process but the States themselves. When States adopt the "winner take all" system then the choice is taken away from the electors as to who would "best serve" as POTUS. The political parties have bastardized this system so bad as to the point of, one could say, "my vote doesn't count.
Click to expand...

What would your solution be?
 
haymarket said:
Do people in states run the state with TYRANNY because we have direct popular vote election of the states Executive?

Do people in cities and towns run those areas with TYRANNY because we have direct popular vote election of the cities or towns Executive?

Of course not and the idea ia silly on its face. You have shown no example ever in this nation where the people voting for an executive puts the majority who did so in a catbird seat wrecking TYRANNY upon the minority. Not a single one.
Click to expand...

Nope. Because there is a check on the abuse that might happen - that little thing called The Constitution of the United States of America.
 
faithful_servant said:
Nope. Because there is a check on the abuse that might happen - that little thing called The Constitution of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Your theory and paranoia falls short of appearing as reality in US history. If your claim were true that a Executive elected by a vote of the people leads to TYRANNY, you should be bale to show examples of this in over 200 years where lots and lots and lots of governors and mayors and county executives have been elected by this very method. But you cant do so because your theory and claim makes no practical sense since the people electing president gives the populace nor the executive any real practical power than can be abused and turned into TYRANNY.
 
CMPancake said:
Without the Electoral College, Bill Clinton still would have beat out Bob Dole by 8.2 million votes.



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...



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.



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.



Astute as always, ObamacareFail. Way to keep up with context of the conversation there, bud.
Click to expand...

It is you that is having trouble with the context. Which part of "We do not elect presidents by popular vote did you not understand?" Despite getting the majority of the popular vote, Bill Clinton did not win with the popular vote. He won by winning enough delegates in state races to win the electoral college. Okay, bud?
 
Visbek said:
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:
Click to expand...

It does not matter who gets pissed off or what your think of the document the founders wrote. The US Constitution does matter. You are stuck with it. Want to change it? Good luck with that. It would take a constitutional amendment that three fourths of the states would have to ratify to change it. For your own peace of mind, I would suggest that you just learn to live with the concept of "win some and lose some".
 
CMPancake said:
B3DiuOc.gif


You can win the majority of the votes without having to win 50% of the total vote. The only person who thinks this is you, and you alone.

Lemme try and put it to you like this: A group of people are eating a pizza, while Bill ate 49% of the pizza, Bob ate 40% of the pizza, and Ross ate 8% of the pizza. Who ate the majority of the pizza?
Click to expand...

In election terminology, if you do not win at least 50% of the votes plus one, you have won a plurality(assuming you got the most votes), not a majority. And even if we had a popular vote system in place to elect presidents, Bill Clinton would have faced a runoff election.
 
CMPancake said:
i5JerGE.gif


Do you... do you understand that majority and most are synonyms, right? This distinction you're making is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

What you apparently do not understand is that in popular vote elections...for instance Senate elections, House of Reps elections, you have not won a majority unless you get greater then 50% of the votes overall. You can play the narcissistic math games all you like, however Bill Clinton would have faced a runoff if we elected presidents by popular vote. Haven't you followed Senate races? House races? Governors races? Mayor races?
 
haymarket said:
Your theory and paranoia falls short of appearing as reality in US history. If your claim were true that a Executive elected by a vote of the people leads to TYRANNY, you should be bale to show examples of this in over 200 years where lots and lots and lots of governors and mayors and county executives have been elected by this very method. But you cant do so because your theory and claim makes no practical sense since the people electing president gives the populace nor the executive any real practical power than can be abused and turned into TYRANNY.
Click to expand...

Some day for your own peace of mind, you are going to have to learn to emotionally accept that this nation is a union of 50 states and not one big state. Perhaps you will also at some point learn to emotionally accept defeat of your party's presidential candidates. You win some and you lose some.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Some day for your own peace of mind, you are going to have to learn to emotionally accept that this nation is a union of 50 states and not one big state. Perhaps you will also at some point learn to emotionally accept defeat of your party's presidential candidates. You win some and you lose some.
Click to expand...

We are one nation and nothing you can spin changes that reality. I have no problem with the person who I vote for losing in a fair election. And we did NOT have one.
 
MrWonka said:
Why exactly would coyote acme schemes cause so many millions of people to all want to move to an area governed by them? Seems to me that if the laws of a state like Kansas were so awesome it would motivate more people to move to it not away from it.
Click to expand...

It is good that you used the word all there. On its face your argument falls flat as many other states are occupied with populations as well and have no wish to relocate.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Some day for your own peace of mind, you are going to have to learn to emotionally accept that this nation is a union of 50 states and not one big state. Perhaps you will also at some point learn to emotionally accept defeat of your party's presidential candidates. You win some and you lose some.
Click to expand...

Hey. In the russian trollfactory they never say die. Just make up some more bs and post it to destabilize whatever they can.
 
ludin said:
Again what I posted has nothing to do with what you are arguing.
The fact is they do get to vote.

The constitution gives the state the power to draw their districts how they see fit.
Some states like FL have passed laws to redraw their districts without bias.

Other states do not have such restrictions. If you don't like how your state draws it's district then start a petition to get it changed.
Click to expand...

No, the constitution does not give the states power to violate the constitution.
 
Absentglare said:
No, the constitution does not give the states power to violate the constitution.
Click to expand...

Again you prove you have no clue what you are talking about.

States have the power to draw their districts. This doesn't stop people from voting as you argued.
 
ludin said:
Again you prove you have no clue what you are talking about.

States have the power to draw their districts. This doesn't stop people from voting as you argued.
Click to expand...

No.

In one cutting remark, Ginsburg summed up how Gorsuch’s patronizing lecture omitted some of the Court’s most important precedents, and Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases, from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.
Click to expand...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch

You need an argument that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked. Again, "one person, one vote."
 
haymarket said:
Your theory and paranoia falls short of appearing as reality in US history. If your claim were true that a Executive elected by a vote of the people leads to TYRANNY, you should be bale to show examples of this in over 200 years where lots and lots and lots of governors and mayors and county executives have been elected by this very method. But you cant do so because your theory and claim makes no practical sense since the people electing president gives the populace nor the executive any real practical power than can be abused and turned into TYRANNY.
Click to expand...

Not WILL lead to tryanny, but rather COULD lead to tyranny. The FFs saw it in England and even most of Europe where there was power without any checks and they put in place systems to prevent that from happening again. We've seen it happen repeatedly as recently as the last 100 years where power had no check on it and have witnessed first hadn the massive destruction that it brings. I would rather have a system that works to protect this nation from that than risk falling into that trap. You seem to prefer the risk...
 
ObamacareFail said:
It does not matter who gets pissed off or what your think of the document the founders wrote. The US Constitution does matter. You are stuck with it. Want to change it? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? Please try to pay attention.

I explicitly stated that eliminating the Electoral College requires an amendment. No one has said otherwise.

My point is that the Presidency ought to be decided by a straight popular vote, rather than a system that is tilted in the favor of those who can gerrymander districts.

This is not about "win some, lose some." It is typical for the winner of the EC to also win the popular vote. Any change that guaranteed one party as the winner every time would be an utter disaster. What matters is that the EC is an obsolete system that distorts representation.

And let's get real: Lots of Republicans want to stick with the EC not out of a fidelity to esoteric beliefs about federalism, but because it's resulted in their winning a handful of recent elections. Thus, all it would take is for one Democrat to win the EC, while losing the popular vote, for many Republicans to cry foul and demand a change.
 
Visbek said:
Uh, hello? Please try to pay attention.

I explicitly stated that eliminating the Electoral College requires an amendment. No one has said otherwise.

My point is that the Presidency ought to be decided by a straight popular vote, rather than a system that is tilted in the favor of those who can gerrymander districts.

This is not about "win some, lose some." It is typical for the winner of the EC to also win the popular vote. Any change that guaranteed one party as the winner every time would be an utter disaster. What matters is that the EC is an obsolete system that distorts representation.

And let's get real: Lots of Republicans want to stick with the EC not out of a fidelity to esoteric beliefs about federalism, but because it's resulted in their winning a handful of recent elections. Thus, all it would take is for one Democrat to win the EC, while losing the popular vote, for many Republicans to cry foul and demand a change.
Click to expand...

You have your opinion, which is fine, but there is nothing about gerrymandering that has to do with the Electoral College. A better discussion is how the actual votes of electors is determined. You will find that the party that has been winning all the EC votes in a state doesn't want to change the method of selection.

For example, Democrats in California in no way want to change from a Winner take all as it would peel off votes to the Republicans. The same is true in Texas where the Republicans don't want to change and for the same reason.
 
faithful_servant said:
Not WILL lead to tryanny, but rather COULD lead to tyranny.
Click to expand...
News flash! Electing the President by a straight popular majority does not abolish all checks and balances. It doesn't increase the powers of the President in any way, shape or form.

In addition, in almost every election, the President wins both the EC and popular vote. How did you fail to notice that?
 
faithful_servant said:
Not WILL lead to tryanny, but rather COULD lead to tyranny. ..
Click to expand...

I am sick and tired of read right wing COULDA nonsense because they opt to live at the intersection of Paranoia Place and Slippery Slop Street.
 
This is all silly talk. Love it...hate it...who gives a ****. The Electoral College is the law of the land. You will NEVER see an amendment passed that changes that. But you are more than welcome to try.

Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom