• 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!

What to do about the election of the President?

JasperL said:
RCV is simple - you rank your choices. There may be good reasons to oppose RCV but 'complicated' is a poor one. After all, if the process of ranking something is too hard, or voters REALLY don't care if their top person loses who gets the nomination, voters don't have to do it. They can just list one candidate. BERNIE OR BUST!! etc.
Click to expand...

In which case, the entire point of the RCV is lost!
 
JimHackerMP said:
In Federalist No. 68 Hamilton praises the convention's scheme for electing the executive, which we call the electoral college. He claims that even the proposed constitution's enemies admitted the process was "pretty well guarded" and that it was the only part of the constitution which escaped severe censure of its opponents. If you take the constitution in a vacuum, it was a pretty ingenious idea. There would have been no way to do a nationwide direct popular vote with America's lack of technology and infrastructure in 1789. There are other reasons, I won't get into, as to why they wouldn't have even considered such a thing at the time, and the associated reasons for its then impossibility.

But today, we have modern communications and infrastructure. It is actually possible (once the telegraph was invented) to run such a national popular vote for President in 2020. Clearly the electoral college, however clever it was at the time, has outlived its cleverness. Three times in our history (I don't count 1876 and 1824 for good reasons) the result of the nationwide popular vote has been at odds with the candidate chosen by the electoral college. In a modern democracy, it's rather silly.

My position, however, is that for now, we need to retain it--but with a reformed PRIMARY process ahead of it. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than his opponent (over two million more). But what's more surprising is that Donald Trump actually got as far as the general election in the first place, and the likes of Hillary Clinton along with him.

How would we go about doing this? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is the shrinking of those who identify with the two major parties. Independents have risen from 30% of the total electorate in 2006 to 40% in 2014 to 45% today if one believes Pew research and Gallup. They left because of the rightward and leftward movements of both parties. Gone too far left and right for them. In other words, middle America, those in-between have no political party to call home anymore. That leaves the hard core leftest and rightest to chose their nominees, ala Trump vs. Clinton. They don't want moderates anymore. Both parties know come general election day, one has to, must choose between whomever they nominate or vote third party.

I was a big tent democrat when the democratic party had both its conservative and liberal wings. But its constant movement to the left became too much for me and I left it after Jimmy Carter's loss to Reagan to become a Reagan Republican. I dumped the GOP in 1992 going with Ross Perot and have never even thought of returning to either party. I probably got a big jump at deserting the major parties over most others.

I think to correct the primaries, both parties need to entice those in-betweeners back into the major party fold. But the hard core rightests and leftests don't want them back. They want to be able to nominate their Clinton's and Trump's with out the wishy washy more or less moderates interfering.

As for the electoral college. The change I would make there is a candidate must win 50% plus one vote to be awarded all that states electoral votes. If no candidate received the required 50% plus one, some 15 states in 2016. Then go by whom wins each congressional district, one electoral vote per district plus giving the winner of the state by plurality the two electoral votes for senator. Maine and Nebraska already do this. No constitutional amendment needed.

Actually, I think if the two parties continue their march to the extreme left and right. That in the near future independents will top the 50% mark. Perhaps then a more moderate, in-between the two major parties, viable third party will finally arise as Americans get tired of having to choose between hard left and hard right.

Then again probably not. But there is always hope.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/219953...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
 
StuPedaso said:
If this last Electoral College had read Federalist 68, tRump would not have been elected.



The Electoral College was invented to preclude the possibility of a charismatic demagogue/con-man from influencing the populous and becoming President; it was "supposed" to safeguard us from the like of a tRump.
Click to expand...
Instead it protected us from the horrors of "Obama's third term". Obama being the textbook definition of "charismatic demagogue con/main"; Wasn't Trump who used "the one we've been waiting for" or promised "Let the world note today is the day the earth began cooling and the oceans start receding". Not to mention the classic "fundamental change America".
 
Tennyson said:
It relies on the Electoral College and the states controll their elections.

The only difference is that that the popular vote in a state was not a concept as the intention was to rely on a state's legislature.

A good reform would be to limit a state's electoral votes to the same average percentage spread in the first three presidential elections.
Click to expand...

Ah, come again? (re your last statement)
 
Perotista: THAT is a really good idea! (that you need a simple majority to win the slate of electors, not just a plurality).
 
Tennyson said:
That does not negate Hamilton's lauding the Electoral College, which is how Trump was elected.
Click to expand...


Bullseye said:
Instead it protected us from the horrors of "Obama's third term".
Click to expand...
(Obama couldn't run for a third term and no way would HRC been another Obama.)



But, Hamilton's reason for supporting the Electoral College was to prevent an unqualified charismatic con man from becoming President.

From a Tea Party publication:

Hamilton assures us that through this process any man who is not qualified will not become president. The vice president is chosen in the same manner with the difference that the senate makes the decision if a majority is not obtained.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
Ah, come again? (re your last statement)
Click to expand...

The maximum electoral votes a state should be able to have would be limited to the percentage spread of the smallest states and the largest states in the first three presidential elections. This is the spirit of the Electoral College, and if the spread was as large as it is today between California and Montana for example in 1787, the Electoral College would look different.
 
StuPedaso said:
But, Hamilton's reason for supporting the Electoral College was to prevent an unqualified charismatic con man from becoming President.

From a Tea Party publication:
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but the bigger issue was small states' representation.
 
Tennyson said:
I can agree with that, but the bigger issue was small states' representation.
Click to expand...

No, the big issue in Hamiltons mind was "that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country."


"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"
Click to expand...

- A. Hammilton
 
Perotista said:
Part of the problem is the shrinking of those who identify with the two major parties. Independents have risen from 30% of the total electorate in 2006 to 40% in 2014 to 45% today if one believes Pew research and Gallup. They left because of the rightward and leftward movements of both parties. Gone too far left and right for them. In other words, middle America, those in-between have no political party to call home anymore. That leaves the hard core leftest and rightest to chose their nominees, ala Trump vs. Clinton. They don't want moderates anymore. Both parties know come general election day, one has to, must choose between whomever they nominate or vote third party.

I was a big tent democrat when the democratic party had both its conservative and liberal wings. But its constant movement to the left became too much for me and I left it after Jimmy Carter's loss to Reagan to become a Reagan Republican. I dumped the GOP in 1992 going with Ross Perot and have never even thought of returning to either party. I probably got a big jump at deserting the major parties over most others.
Click to expand...

The bolded portion is a mirror image of my political movement over the decades, and much for the same reasons. The only difference is after Ross Perot I initially went Libertarian...until I saw they could not agree on anything to get organized enough to appeal to a larger population of voters. So I simply began voting for the lesser of two evils, if at all.
 
StuPedaso said:
No, the big issue in Hamiltons mind was "that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country."


- A. Hammilton
Click to expand...

You are referencing only Hamilton only and his essay that was written only to New York. Hamilton had zero imput in the Constitution as Morris sent Butler and Yates to the convention to block any of Hamilton's anti-state proposals. They did and Hamilton left the Philadelphia Convention. Context and perspective.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What to do about the election of President?

Nothing when it comes to the Electoral College.
When I was young and innocent, I too thought our President was elected by popular vote as per the term "Democracy."

I then learned we are not really a Democracy, but rather a Federal Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

That's why our country's official name is the United STATES of America.

At the Founding were had large population/area, medium population/area, and small population/area States. The fear of having the President elected by a simple majority of al citizens was that the larger populated States would dominate the government to the detriment of small and medium states.
Click to expand...

That's just not correct, or I've never seen any evidence that's correct. There were several reasons, but protecting small states certainly was not the main one - their interests were protected by allotting them two senators, same as the big states.

Protecting slave state interests was almost certainly FAR more important than protecting smaller states. With a direct election, the slave states would be at a disadvantage because 40% of the population couldn't vote, meaning they'd have 40% less influence based on population than 'free' states. The 3/5 compromise for the House (and that worked for the electoral college too) allowed the 40% of slaves to be the equivalent of 24% free whites for purposes of POTUS elections. So a direct election would reduce their influence by that 24% - or, alternatively the electoral college increased the slave state influence by 24% versus a direct vote by the people.

But the main reason appears to be the founders didn't have a lot of faith in the electorate and preferred the elites to do the voting, not the masses, which was reflected in voting rules at that time that was limited in ways other than just blacks - women, and in some cases men without property weren't allowed to vote.
 
Tennyson said:
You are referencing only Hamilton only and his essay that was written only to New York. Hamilton had zero imput in the Constitution as Morris sent Butler and Yates to the convention to block any of Hamilton's anti-state proposals. They did and Hamilton left the Philadelphia Convention. Context and perspective.
Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing 68; Hamilton wrote 68.
 
JimHackerMP said:
In which case, the entire point of the RCV is lost!
Click to expand...

Only for those who can't grasp the concept of some version of, "My first choice is Bob, but if he loses, I sure would prefer Mary over that communist witch Sue - can't stand her. So I'll rank them:

1st choice - Bob
2nd Choice - Mary
3rd Choice - Sue

Doesn't seem too hard for the average voter to me....
 
StuPedaso said:
I thought we were discussing 68; Hamilton wrote 68.
Click to expand...

That is what I am addressing and I am addressing Hamilton and who the essay was addressed to.
 
JasperL said:
That's just not correct, or I've never seen any evidence that's correct. There were several reasons, but protecting small states certainly was not the main one - their interests were protected by allotting them two senators, same as the big states.

But the main reason appears to be the founders didn't have a lot of faith in the electorate and preferred the elites to do the voting, not the masses, which was reflected in voting rules at that time that was limited in ways other than just blacks - women, and in some cases men without property weren't allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Actually there are several articles on this issue.

You are correct in that the primary reason was to prevent the populace from making rash choices electing demagogues to this highest office; so the original College was set up so that delegates of the "best men" from each State could make the best selection. Changes occurred later over time as problems arose.

However, the distribution of one Elector for each State Senator and the number of additional Electors based on the same population requirements for Representatives guaranteed at least 3 Electoral votes regardless of State size. This to address the same concerns raised when the Senate and Congress were being created.
 
Last edited:
Tennyson said:
That is what I am addressing and I am addressing Hamilton and who the essay was addressed to.
Click to expand...

What essay? IF you're calling 68 "the essay" it was not addressed to Hamilton; Hamilton WROTE 68. Beyond that I have no ide what you're trying to say.
 
StuPedaso said:
What essay? IF you're calling 68 "the essay" it was not addressed to Hamilton; Hamilton WROTE 68. Beyond that I have no ide what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

Hamilton wrote 68, an essay, to New York. I have addressed the rest of 68 and Hamilton in context.
 
JasperL said:
Not a fan of closed primaries, nor do I see the advantage in strictly limiting the vote to members of the club. Trump won the primaries because he got more votes. I don't think it matters who cast them, just that they did.

My preference is admittedly partly personal. In this area, I know the GOP nominee will win most races, but not all races. So in 2016 I voted in the Democratic primary so I could express a preference for POTUS at that point. This week I'll vote in the GOP primary for Governor, an open House seat and the seat Corker is leaving in the Senate, and it's because the GOP nominee WILL WIN the Governor's race and the House seat and I have a strong preference which Republican wins those races and represents my area and is Governor. In the Senate, Bredesen will win that primary easily, and so I don't need to cast a vote until the general.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? More importantly, how does that improve elections if only (e.g.) registered Republicans get to express preferences about GOP nominees? If you live in a blue state, why shouldn't registered republicans be allowed to express preferences on which Democrat will win? You're demanding, effectively, that we register with a party that we might not/do not align with, or give up our right to cast MEANINGFUL votes in a lot of primaries.

As to solutions, what I'd like to see either in primaries or the general is some kind of ranked choice vote (RCV) system, instant runoff, whatever. You talked about Trump - the problem with him and others in a lot of primaries is most people don't show up, and those that do are often the true believers, the activists, and the person who motivates the activists gets the win. Trump is and was also really polarizing - you had people who loved him or hated him. At least with ranked choice voting in the early going, some Cruz voter, for example, who was a neverTrumper could rank Kasich second, Bush third, etc. and that effectively pushes Trump down the list to the bottom in the second 'round.' As is, with plurality takes all, you might 'win' a primary with 24% of the vote if there are lots of people running. Ranked choice voting would, IMO, result in a better process, no matter who the candidate or the race because it better reflects all our ACTUAL PREFERENCES.

It also will encourage more people to run, or reduce the huge pressure on some candidates who aren't doing well early to drop out. Say you have 4 "conservatives" running in a primary, and one 'moderate.' The danger is the conservatives split the far right vote, and the moderate might win the primary with 30%, even if 70% of the voters preferred someone more conservative. In the current system, the party will put a HUGE amount of pressure on the conservative losing early polls to drop out and endorse someone else to make sure a 'true' conservative wins the primary. With RCV that guy can tell the party to shove it - let the voters rank them and it will work out fine.

It also allows for third parties to run and get more votes. I NEVER vote 3rd party, because they will lose, and I always have a preference between which major party candidate is least horrible. With RCV I'd have voted 3rd party first ballot several times. Etc. Lots of reasons to go with RCV over our current system.
Click to expand...

I like most of what you are saying. This will never work because it would be too hard for the rich and powerful to own all the candidates. The rich and powerful fund both parties and don't want some candidate of the people to win. Until Trump came along we were sure that either a democrat or a republican would become president and would control congress. With your system independents could get a lot of support without fear of throwing away your vote. That is just not going to fly with the rich and powerful who own our government.
 
Tennyson said:
Hamilton wrote 68, an essay, to New York. I have addressed the rest of 68 and Hamilton in context.
Click to expand...
No you haven’t. Originally you said our last election was in harmony with 68. Now you’re changing your tune and saying 68 is invalid.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
The bolded portion is a mirror image of my political movement over the decades, and much for the same reasons. The only difference is after Ross Perot I initially went Libertarian...until I saw they could not agree on anything to get organized enough to appeal to a larger population of voters. So I simply began voting for the lesser of two evils, if at all.
Click to expand...

Strange, I voted for Johnson twice, 2012 and 2016. I don't classify myself as even coming close to being a libertarian. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil knowingly. Having said that, after Perot twice, I did vote for Bush twice just to keep the other guys from winning. McCain, I was whole heartily a backer of him. The only major party candidate in the last seven elections that I wanted to win.

I cast my first presidential vote back in 1968, you had to be 21 years old to vote then. I did so by absentee from Bangkok Thailand of all places. Even though I became a Reagan Republican, I continued to vote Democratic at the state and local levels until 1998. That was when the Atlanta liberals took over the Georgia Democratic Party which immediately lead to us Georgian's electing our first ever Republican governor and state legislature in 2002.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually there are several articles on this issue. The primary reason was to prevent the populace from making rash choices, so the College was set up so that delegates from each State could make the best selection. This lasted for the first four elections. However, the distribution of one Elector for each State Senator and the number of additional Electors based on the same population requirements for Representatives guaranteed at least 3 Electoral votes regardless of State size.
Click to expand...

Right, I understand the math and that it very slightly in practice increases the influence for smaller states. I've just never read any informed analysis of the time that attributes more than a bit part to that small extra influence for small states in the reasons for the electoral college. The math makes it clear the big benefit of the EC versus popular vote was to slave states. That might not have been THE REASON, but the slave states made it really unthinkable to have a popular vote - they'd never have signed on because it would cede enormous additional power to 'free states' - and so a direct election wasn't (from what I read) ever on the table, understandably.

As far as I can tell the 'protect small states' theory is a modern day myth, but I'm willing to learn if you have any reading on it!

IMO a much better reason to KEEP the electoral college is the winner take all method of allocating the electoral college puts a premium on swing states with a closely divided population, as opposed to conservatives running up the score in red states and liberals out in CA and NY getting their already committed voters out in BIGGER force. The advantage there is the candidates to win 'purple' states can't be too partisan - it's a moderating influence because it requires the winner to attract those 'middle' voters in the most closely divided (i.e. moderate) states....

It's not a benefit to Tennessee either way - we're reliably red now so get just about no attention in the general election, and we're an average size state that doesn't benefit much if at all from the electoral college. My own preference, as I said, is probably to keep the EC but go to RCV - that latter will do more good than eliminating the EC, and can happen without a constitutional amendment...
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
In Federalist No. 68 Hamilton praises the convention's scheme for electing the executive, which we call the electoral college. He claims that even the proposed constitution's enemies admitted the process was "pretty well guarded" and that it was the only part of the constitution which escaped severe censure of its opponents. If you take the constitution in a vacuum, it was a pretty ingenious idea. There would have been no way to do a nationwide direct popular vote with America's lack of technology and infrastructure in 1789. There are other reasons, I won't get into, as to why they wouldn't have even considered such a thing at the time, and the associated reasons for its then impossibility.

But today, we have modern communications and infrastructure. It is actually possible (once the telegraph was invented) to run such a national popular vote for President in 2020. Clearly the electoral college, however clever it was at the time, has outlived its cleverness. Three times in our history (I don't count 1876 and 1824 for good reasons) the result of the nationwide popular vote has been at odds with the candidate chosen by the electoral college. In a modern democracy, it's rather silly.

My position, however, is that for now, we need to retain it--but with a reformed PRIMARY process ahead of it. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than his opponent (over two million more). But what's more surprising is that Donald Trump actually got as far as the general election in the first place, and the likes of Hillary Clinton along with him.

How would we go about doing this? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

The electoral college simply uses states to elect the executive, and uses people of those states to decide how the electoral votes are cast in modern times, the original intent was actually to have a mix of state and the people decide, the people elected the reps, the state appointed senators, each rep and each senator would count as a electoral vote.

However there is only one first world country that has direct elections for head of state and that is france, all others with direct executive elections are third world countries, and most first world nations use indirect elections for executive or have a congress/parliament elect the executive.

The electoral college has been in use since the holy roman empire, and some countries today like germany still use it. It is not an outdated system, but rather is a system of representative democracy that adds a layer between the masses and election results, which allows people in less populated areas to be represented.
 
StuPedaso said:
No you haven’t. Originally you said our last election was in harmony with 68. Now you’re changing your tune and saying 68 is invalid.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. All I did was put 68 into context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom