• 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.

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

Just before the Revolutionary War there were various districts that was controlled by the Brittish. After the Revolutionary War these same districts didn't just dissolve. The leaders of these districts considered themselves separate from the other districts. They were their own little mini-countries for lack of a better term at this time. These leaders knew that with them being so small that another country, a bigger country with more resources could came in (especially with the aftermath of the Revolutionary War) and basically take them over quite easily. In order to avoid this they communicated with each other for the express purpose of mutual defense. They were essentially doing what any other country did with when they had possible opponents that were bigger than them. A system that has been in effect for thousands of years and still exists to this day. They were making allies with equal or smaller, or hopefully bigger, states than they were. All for mutual defense.

While trying to make allies they did not and never intended to give up control of their areas. This was purely a strategic tactic to ensure their survival. This led to the first Constitution known as the Articles of Confederation. As the name implies it was a confederation of states. Separate but equal states bound together for self defense. After some time they realized that the Articles of Confederation had some flaws. For example there was a problem of money paying for what this federal government was supposed to do. Or rather the lack of money to pay for it and there was no provisions in the Articles of Confederation that allowed the raising of such monies. IE: Taxes. They relied entirely upon the States to fund them and those States often did not pay in full what they promised. The States realized in order to properly assure mutual defense then they needed to make a slightly stronger federal government. One that could raise the money needed for protection and one that could over ride petty squabbles if the need should arise. (one reason the commerce clause was added into the US Constitution)

This led to a Constitutional Convention. Which formed the current Constitution. The States gave up some power to ensure that all protection was mutual. But, even though they gave up some power for this they did not and would not give up complete power. They ensured this by making a limited Federal Government. Delegating it certain powers which it was never supposed to go beyond. Part of doing this was what led to the Electoral College. It ensured that the States, got to choose who ran the Federal government. And they made it to where each State would have essentially one voice, one vote. (the EC is more complicated than that, just boiling it down here). Each member State was supposed to have equal say in this Federal government. And it was designed this way by making the legislatures of each State select representatives to decide who was to become President.

Note what I said there. It was designed this way by making the legislatures of each State select representatives to decide who was to become President. It wasn't left up to the people of each state. But their legislatures. The people had their say in how the Federal government was run by electing their legislatures and Representatives into office. IE: The Senators and Congressmen. It was up to the States to decide who to elect to enforce the will of the People. That is how the member States kept their control of how the Government was run. The people were never meant to elect the President. Just the Senators and Congressmen. It was another part of the Checks and Balances that was made into the current US Constitution. A way to make sure that the Executive Branch was not stronger than the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. And visa versa all around.

There is of course a bit more to it. This is just the watered down version but enough is in there to explain why we have the EC.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

Not less. You have a say no matter where you live.
 
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?

Why should where you live matter if we are a United States?
 
Why should where you live matter if we are a United States?

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?
 
It wasn't left up to the people of each state. But their legislatures. The people had their say in how the Federal government was run by electing their legislatures and Representatives into office. IE: The Senators and Congressmen. It was up to the States to decide who to elect to enforce the will of the People. That is how the member States kept their control of how the Government was run. The people were never meant to elect the President. Just the Senators and Congressmen. It was another part of the Checks and Balances that was made into the current US Constitution. A way to make sure that the Executive Branch was not stronger than the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. And visa versa all around.

There is of course a bit more to it. This is just the watered down version but enough is in there to explain why we have the EC.

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.

Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by State assemblies, not popular vote. So it was removed even one more step.
 
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.

Priceless!
 
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?

Ahh so not getting your way each and every time is being punished? Welcome to life man. It can be a shocker.
 
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.

All the urbanites need do, then, is amend the Constitution.

The Founders addressed the NEED for the Electoral College in the Federalist Papers.
 
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?

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
 
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?

A double whammy! You'd think that living in those areas would be punishment enough!
 
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?

votes.JPG
 
i don't really want to get rid of the electoral college. what i would like to see is the elimination of gerrymandering nationwide, and i also support a national primary day. all primary and general election votes should count, and no politician should be able to participate in the drawing of his or her own district. these points are not contestable.
 
i don't really want to get rid of the electoral college. what i would like to see is the elimination of gerrymandering nationwide, and i also support a national primary day. all primary and general election votes should count, and no politician should be able to participate in the drawing of his or her own district. these points are not contestable.

Absent Gerrymandering, how do you propose that Congressional districts be drawn?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Anything that Wily ordered from ACME would be a stark improvement on the situation we are now saddle with!

View attachment 67225912
 
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.

Yep. Instead the country is held hostage to a small number of swing states.
 
i don't really want to get rid of the electoral college. what i would like to see is the elimination of gerrymandering nationwide, and i also support a national primary day. all primary and general election votes should count, and no politician should be able to participate in the drawing of his or her own district. these points are not contestable.

It is up to states how their districts are drawn. Federal government has nothing to do with it.
Petition your state to change it.
 
Absent Gerrymandering, how do you propose that Congressional districts be drawn?

by a computer, using only census generated population density data.
 
i don't really want to get rid of the electoral college. what i would like to see is the elimination of gerrymandering nationwide, and i also support a national primary day. all primary and general election votes should count, and no politician should be able to participate in the drawing of his or her own district. these points are not contestable.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom