• 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!

An Argument in Support of the Electoral College.

You’ve obviously not look at the last election results map. I don’t know who you think you are fooling.

A popular vote doesn't fall under the EC paradigm you're relying on. Maps do not matter. Geography is irrelevant. People can vote in Wyoming, and Kansas, and Ohio, and it all counts the same. Democrats can vote in red states and Republicans can vote in blue states and it all counts--and it's all weighted the same.
 
You do realize that changing the electoral college would require just a tiny bit more than a majority. Right?

Actually, yes I do realize that changing the electoral college would require just a tiny bit more than a majority. On May 5 2018, Connecticut’s General Assembly approved a bill that would make the state the 11th to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and the first since the 2016 election. Once enough other states have signed on, the bill would bind a state’s Electoral College votes — seven, in Connecticut’s case — to the candidate who wins the most raw votes in a presidential election. It’s another small step on the way to what advocates hope will turn into major election reform.

Killing the Electoral College by conventional means would involve passing a nationwide constitutional amendment or convening a Constitutional convention, both close to impossible tasks. So clever reformists came up with an alternate route: passing state laws that would take effect only when it is guaranteed that enough other states have signed on to swing the outcome. The magic number is 270 electoral votes, out of the 538 available.

So again, yeah I realize what it will take to change the electoral college.
 
Except they don't. I've voted in a swing state and I've voted in sure states. And I can assure it's not the same experience.

It may not be the same experience but it's the same result. Whichever candidate wins the total votes in that state gets the votes from that state. It's not a single competition, it's a 50 game series and you don't get bonus points for winning one game in the series but many points.

As I already noted in this thread, across the two major campaigns there were a grand total of zero events in the eight 3-vote states in the 2016 election. That's unfortunate. But it's absurd that the three largest states in the country, covering more than a quarter of the nation's population, got virtually zero attention in the last election (2 events total, one in California and one in Texas, probably both fundraising swings). The reality is that virtually all attention and resources are devoted to a handful of swing states. And of those swing states, disproportionately the bigger ones, e.g., Ohio and Florida.

Right....why would anyone hold an event in say...California, when we already know what way they are going to vote? It is California's own fault for being in the bag for one party and it resulting in them not getting any attention. They still get the biggest chunk of electoral votes that takes a lot to overcome.
 
It may not be the same experience but it's the same result. Whichever candidate wins the total votes in that state gets the votes from that state.

In one scenario one's vote can contribute to the outcome, in the other it cannot. That's a perversity in a free society's most important election.

Right....why would anyone hold an event in say...California, when we already know what way they are going to vote? It is California's own fault for being in the bag for one party and it resulting in them not getting any attention.

Again, effectively weighting any prospective voter's vote at zero in a free election is absurd.

Doing so for most voters in the country should provoke a crisis of legitimacy in any rational society.
 
In one scenario one's vote can contribute to the outcome, in the other it cannot. That's a perversity in a free society's most important election.

Again, effectively weighting any prospective voter's vote at zero in a free election is absurd.

Doing so for most voters in the country should provoke a crisis of legitimacy in any rational society.

It's plenty free. States should be doing most of the governing, not the federal government. It's also the states who elect the President. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
 
It's plenty free. States should be doing most of the governing, not the federal government. It's also the states who elect the President. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Because a state-selected group of electors makes sense. A national popular vote makes sense.

A weighted aggregation of state-level popular votes does not make sense, and is simply an unintended organic development over time that has made the EC as an institution unrecognizable (in terms of its original purpose and intended function) and an incoherent, vestigial shadow of what it once was.

The onslaught of retconned explanations for this contemporary perversity and ahistorical rationalizations for it is laughable.
 
the EC failed to protect us from a dangerously unfit for office candidate like Trump. i have defended it in the past for this and for other reasons. i now support an effort to get rid of it, as it doesn't work as intended.

Basically, you like government when it forces people to do what you like, and complain about it when it forces upon you what you don't like.

When will people like you realize that it's the force that is wrong, and not what is being forced?
 
It saved us from the alternative candidate that might have started WW3 so I'm cool with it.

i am also "cool" with not starting WWIII.
 
Basically, you like government when it forces people to do what you like, and complain about it when it forces upon you what you don't like.

When will people like you realize that it's the force that is wrong, and not what is being forced?

i'm not sure that i understand your argument.
 
Because a state-selected group of electors makes sense. A national popular vote makes sense.

A weighted aggregation of state-level popular votes does not make sense, and is simply an unintended organic development over time that has made the EC as an institution unrecognizable (in terms of its original purpose and intended function) and an incoherent, vestigial shadow of what it once was.

The onslaught of retconned explanations for this contemporary perversity and ahistorical rationalizations for it is laughable.

It doesn't make sense if you want a system that is more easily checked in power and who's efforts are confounded by the individual states. There is nothing "ahistorical" about it. This is what was intended. Everything you're saying was specifically not what was intended. I mean, the entire construct of the Senate, giving all states just two Senators, is even worse than the way the electoral college shakes out so you may as well ask for that to be ended too, eh?

Sorry, you just don't understand the principles on why the U.S. was constructed the way it was.
 
The Electoral College is one of the very worst features of American democracy, a residual mechanism that effectively reduces presidential contests to a few swing states. Republicans, losers of six of the last seven popular votes, are more than happy to keep things as they are. We've had 230 years of an unfair tradition and if Democrats take the majority once again, we may soon witness the last gasps of a dying Electoral College.

You do realize the states, not the Congress, votes on amendments to the Constitution. And each state gets one vote. President Trump won 30 states. You need 3/4 to amend. That leaves the anti electoral states a wee bit short.
 
Interesting Discussion. I have been studying at this forum for a couple of weeks. This discussion encouraged me to sign up.

It seems interesting that changing electoral systems is often initiated by the side that lost the last election. And, of course, this side has lots of good reasons for making the change. Conversely, the side that won the last election will defend the status quo, again providing good reasons. There doesn't seem to be any winning with logic as ulterior motives often weigh in heavy in this kind of discussion.

Speaking to the 2016 US Presidential election, one point that should be made--and almost always is not--is that Electoral College will never vault an un-viable candidate into the office of the President. For example, the 65m vs 62m split in popular vote between Clinton and Trump was still a fairly close race. Neither earned an overwhelming support from the people. Both sides were viable candidates for the job, according to the numbers. Had the vote gone 65m to 57m, it is doubtful Mr. Trump could have won with the rules of the Electoral College.

While we can argue about the rules, all I can say is: "These are rules, and until USA changes them, the EC is how future presidents are going to be elected."

One historical point that should be made--and almost always is not--is that the Electoral College was designed with a non-partisan approach to governance. The founding fathers had a disdain for political factions and parties and devised their new system such that each elected representative would be basing HIS vote on HIS conscious and/or needs of the people who directly elected HIM. There was to be no vote cast based on faction or party affiliation. There was to be no vote cast based on favors earned or favors paid off.

What this meant was that the founding fathers believed that the general population (that had the right to vote) really didn't know the prospective candidates for president and vice-president well enough to cast a wise vote. Rather the founding fathers put this responsibility on the elected members of the state legislatures. The founding fathers believed that these representatives would be working with each other on a fairly regular basis---and would be a better position to know who is more capable for the job of president of the United States than the general population (that had the right to vote). In essence, the Electoral College was more about an indirect election to get a wiser voting result than an advantage for the smaller states, a feature of the American democracy.

Political factions, then parties quickly formed in this new Republic. The original reason for the Electoral College became lost. The keepers of the constitution devised some rules that, legally speaking, voters are now voting for mouthpieces of the political parties, but the ballot shows the candidates proffered by the parties. In this way, the election of the president became a direct election, while keeping with the legalese of the constitution.

What resulted is the noisy presidential campaigns we have today, where populist leaders with little substance can be elected. And yes, the voters can be bribed with their own money. The founding fathers would tell Americans today that the modern presidential campaign is not what the founding fathers had intended. Rather they were looking towards a man of great statesmanship and leadership, who has commanded trust and respect from his fellow legislators.
 
So justify why voters in some states have three to four times the weight behind their votes than voters in other states do and why that is not a violation of the sacred principle of one person/one vote with all votes being equal?

So justify why eleven states should be able to elect a president if a candidate wins each state by a single vote even if they are not on the ballot in the other 39.

And tell us why Americans should not feel that the occupant of the White House is illegitimate when a much higher number of voters voted for a different candidate?

And then tell us what year it is on the calendar and why we should care about most of the arguments in the OP being from two or three centuries ago from an American which no longer exists?
 
It works EXACTLY as intended.

When the EC was proposed in the Constitution, a series of articles explained to the people of the nation why they should support ratification of the document. They were collectively called the Federalist Papers. #68 was written by Alexander Hamilton, the future toast of Broadway. In it he promises how the nation will be protected from our greatest threat - a foreign power putting a creature of their own in our highest office.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

This protection from the EC FAILED to happen in 2016. In fact, not only did it fail to happen, there is not one shred of evidence in any report that even a single one of the fifty state electors meetings even discussed or considered it.

The EC is a lose/lose proposition and must be abolished or we will continue to be saddled with illegitimate presidents.
 
So justify why voters in some states have three to four times the weight behind their votes than voters in other states do and why that is not a violation of the sacred principle of one person/one vote with all votes being equal?

Sacred principle? :roll:

No "voters" have 3 to 4 times the weight behind their votes. The system was never set up for a popular vote it was always a "State vote" system.

So justify why eleven states should be able to elect a president if a candidate wins each state by a single vote even if they are not on the ballot in the other 39.

Again (I have no idea what example you used to create this question since I think Trump was on the ballot in every State) taking your argument at face value, that has more to do with the "winner-take-all" method of awarding electoral votes that all but two State's (Nebraska and Maine award Elector's proportionately) use. Thus even though California had areas where Trump won Congressional districts, ALL 55 Electors were given to Hillary.

And tell us why Americans should not feel that the occupant of the White House is illegitimate when a much higher number of voters voted for a different candidate?

For the same reason we only count those who actually voted. It takes a plurality, not a majority of those who voted to elect our President. Hillary got less than 50% of the total vote count (48.18%), and over 97 million eligible voters didn't vote for anyone.

So your "majority" is only a plurality of those who did vote, not a majority of either those who voted, or of the entire eligible voting population. Meanwhile, again it is STATE electoral votes being awarded, not popular minority share of votes being tallied.

And then tell us what year it is on the calendar and why we should care about most of the arguments in the OP being from two or three centuries ago from an American which no longer exists?

For the same reasons "we care" about the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and all those Articles on how the government is set up written by those same American's "who no longer exist."
 
Last edited:
When the EC was proposed in the Constitution, a series of articles explained to the people of the nation why they should support ratification of the document. They were collectively called the Federalist Papers. #68 was written by Alexander Hamilton, the future toast of Broadway. In it he promises how the nation will be protected from our greatest threat - a foreign power putting a creature of their own in our highest office.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68



This protection from the EC FAILED to happen in 2016. In fact, not only did it fail to happen, there is not one shred of evidence in any report that even a single one of the fifty state electors meetings even discussed or considered it.

The EC is a lose/lose proposition and must be abolished or we will continue to be saddled with illegitimate presidents.

No...YOU believe a foreign power had such a major effect. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE showing this to be true.

Yes, there were "Russian bots" on Facebook and Twitter. Yes, there appears to be (although now thanks to the FBI "insurance policy" scandal this evidence is suspect too) evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC. But no real evidence that sufficient votes were actually swayed in those "Blue Wall 'swing states'" Trump won, as opposed to the very real evidence of how his rallies helped him "bigly" in those States.

It is just assumption bias turned fanatical belief because you choose to believe in something to justify the fact your world was turned upside-down by the results.
 
Sacred principle? :roll:

No "voters" have 3 to 4 times the weight behind their votes.

One person/one vote is now a sacred principle of American democracy and has been so for a long time now. You trying to deny it is a denial of obvious reality.

If you are not familiar with the mathematics of votes and the Electoral College, simply
1 - take the population of Wyoming and divide it by the number of electoral votes Wyoming has which will give you the figure of how many Wyoming voters it takes to produce one electoral vote.
2- now do the same thing for New York or California.
3- now compare the two numbers and you will find that it takes three to four times the number of people in New York or California to produce the same number of votes Wyoming and some other smaller states have.

here is a map to assist you and provide the basic data

Presidential election: A map showing the vote power of all 50 states.

clicking on each state provides you the data

Note that Wyoming effectively gets one electoral vote for each 143,000 people while New York effectively gets one electoral vote for every 519,000 people. This is a disparity by a factor of 3.6.

That give each voter in Wyoming and some other states three to four times the weight behind their votes than voters in larger states.

To be blunt and to be honest, I find it rather shocking that any intelligent and educated person trying to discuss the Electoral College is not aware of this.
 
Last edited:
Again (I have no idea what example you used to create this question since I think Trump was on the ballot in every State) taking your argument at face value, that has more to do with the "winner-take-all" method of awarding electoral votes that all but two State's (Nebraska and Maine award Elector's proportionately) use. Thus even though California had areas where Trump won Congressional districts, ALL 55 Electors were given to Hillary.

Again, it is quite shocking that somebody pretending to intelligently discuss the EC system is not aware of basic arithmetic of the system. If a candidate wins each of the eleven largest states by a single vote in each of them - but is not even on the ballot in the other 39 states, they win the Electoral College. The system allows this.

Did you not realize that?
 
No...YOU believe a foreign power had such a major effect. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE showing this to be true.

Yes, there were "Russian bots" on Facebook and Twitter. Yes, there appears to be (although now thanks to the FBI "insurance policy" scandal this evidence is suspect too) evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC. But no real evidence that sufficient votes were actually swayed in those "Blue Wall 'swing states'" Trump won, as opposed to the very real evidence of how his rallies helped him "bigly" in those States.

It is just assumption bias turned fanatical belief because you choose to believe in something to justify the fact your world was turned upside-down by the results.

And even if you are 100% right - which you are obviously not - it ignores the reality that when the EC met in the states to cast their votes, there was plenty of very public speculation about Russian help given to Trump in the election. The very thing Hamilton warned about in Federalist 68 and the very thing Hamilton promised the American people they would be protected from.

But the EC failed to even discuss the matter in a single state as no reported evidence exists that this was done at all.

Again, it matter NOT if you accept the Russian help to Trump. What matters is that it was a national concern and there is not a single shred of evidence that the EC did their job as promised to protect us from a creature of a foreign power being placed into our highest office.

Your beliefs on the matter are not the issue when discussing the function of the Electoral College.

But your stated beliefs on this issue of Russian help for Trump to help him get elected do go a long way to explain your support for the system which placed him in the White House over the will of the people.

Your denial ignores the collective conclusion of our intelligence services and all the investigation being done into the matter. As such, it borders on willful delusion.

You have demonstrated that you live on the other side of the line divorcing reality from delusion. As such there is no point in trying to discuss this with you any more that it would be a good use of time to go into an institution and try and convince the self claimed Napoleon he is not the true Emperor of France.
 
Last edited:
One person/one vote is now a sacred principle of American democracy and has been so for a long time now. You trying to deny it is a denial of obvious reality.

Stop lecturing me about your dreams. Your argument is based on what you wish to be, not the reality nor the purpose clearly explained for the Electoral College.

Again, it is quite shocking that somebody pretending to intelligently discuss the EC system is not aware of basic arithmetic of the system. If a candidate wins each of the eleven largest states by a single vote in each of them - but is not even on the ballot in the other 39 states, they win the Electoral College. The system allows this.

Already explained to you. The "system" allows the STATE's to decide how they wish to award their Electoral College votes. 48 STATE's have decided on the "winner-take-all" option that you are talking about. Two STATE's use a proportional system, i.e. the winner of the popular vote in each Representative District get that Electoral vote, and the two Senator electoral votes go to the candidate who got the most popular votes.

If you don't like your State's system, lobby your State government to choose a different method. :shrug:

And even if you are 100% right - which you are obviously not - it ignores the reality that when the EC met in the states to cast their votes, there was plenty of very public speculation about Russian help given to Trump in the election. The very thing Hamilton warned about in Federalist 68 and the very thing Hamilton promised the American people they would be protected from.

1. Simply saying "obviously" without any FACTUAL evidence to show your "obvious" point is valid is an appeal to popularity and just your opinion.

2. The EC's job is to vote the way their State has determined they are required to vote. They can only be "unfaithful" if there is a FACTUAL basis on which to make a case. Allegations of wrongdoing are simply that...ALLEGATIONS. It does not matter that YOU and other's might think Russian electioneering efforts could have helped Trump win. Citizens STILL VOTED per each State's legal mechanism as they chose to.

That second point is the real problem with both your and the most of this Administrations opponent's arguments, and also give's the lie to claims it wasn't the election result that raises objections but rather his actions as President. YOU clearly believe, as do most people typically labeled TDS sufferers, that the election was STOLEN unfairly. That Trump was never elected honestly.

You use the E.C. as an excuse knowing full well you would not be complaining if your expectations were met with Hillary's election.

You use the Russian's as an excuse to explain this "mistake." That Trump's would never have won without their assistance.

Yet he's maintain the same or greater level of popular support all this time despite every effort from the Left, RINO's, the MSM, and the "Deep State's" Russian conspiracy investigation which should show you that those who voted for Trump voted because they wanted him elected, not because some Russian "bots" convinced them.

So you keep going down that fantasy trail, knowing as you do you have the support of like-minded individual...but not the support of those who despite all this still DON'T buy your viewpoint.

Always remember, you have your "one person, one vote" in State elections and also for your Congress-critters in both Houses, but until something changes drastically the President is still elected by a system to insure he governs on behalf of sovereign States that supported his election. I support that idea as a way to keep these States "United" and not subject to the will of the large city "mobs".
 
Last edited:
Stop lecturing me about your dreams. Your argument is based on what you wish to be, not the reality nor the purpose clearly explained for the Electoral College.

Tel me one thing I have said that is not reality?

Already explained to you. The "system" allows the STATE's to decide how they wish to award their Electoral College votes. 48 STATE's have decided on the "winner-take-all" option that you are talking about. Two STATE's use a proportional system, i.e. the winner of the popular vote in each Representative District get that Electoral vote, and the two Senator electoral votes go to the candidate who got the most popular votes.

If you don't like your State's system, lobby your State government to choose a different method. :shrug:

That is irrelevant to the points I have raised.

The rest of your post may mean something to you - but it utterly failed to refute anything that I said in providing the evidence from Alexander Hamilton and how not one single state did what he promised the nation the Electoral College would do. Not one.

So your musings on that are also irrelevant.

The reality is that

1 - we have a system that rewards the smallest of states with Electoral votes all out of proportion to the votes awarded to the largest states by a factor of between three and four times. And the map I provided and the math prove that. This then violates the sacred principle of one person/one vote with all votes being equal in weight.

2- we have a system which was suppose to function a certain way and has failed to function as promised and the experience of 2016 demonstrates that clearly .

3- we have a system where a candidate only needs to win in each of the eleven largest states by a single vote in each and does not even need to be on the ballot in the other 39 states.

All you talk about winner take all and proportional distribution is irrelevant to that.
 
Last edited:
Tel me one thing I have said that is not reality?



That is irrelevant to the points I have raised.

The rest of your post may mean something to you - but it utterly failed to refute anything that I said in providing the evidence from Alexander Hamilton and how not one single state did what he promised the nation the Electoral College would do. Not one.

So your musings on that are also irrelevant.

The reality is that

1 - we have a system that rewards the smallest of states with Electoral votes all out of proportion to the votes awarded to the largest states by a factor of between three and four times. And the map I provided and the math prove that. This then violates the sacred principle of one person/one vote with all votes being equal in weight.

2- we have a system which was suppose to function a certain way and has failed to function as promised and the experience of 2016 demonstrates that clearly .

3- we have a system where a candidate only needs to win in each of the eleven largest states by a single vote in each and does not even need to be on the ballot in the other 39 states.

All you talk about winner take all and proportional distribution is irrelevant to that.

By your used logic and rationale, if we say the next Democrat candidate is being aided by China, they shouldn't be elected by the EC?
 
6. The Presidency was always designed to represent the entire Nation, not just the most populous States. The holder of that office is supposed to consider even the least populated State when deciding whether or not to veto laws passed by Congress. If elected by purely popular vote, then States like New York and California would be the focus of all attention and decide the fate of all the other States in this Union.

And the electoral college somehow forces the candidates/presidents to represent the entire country rather than a few states? Lets be real. If the POTUS were elected by popular vote, trump would actually have to worry about california so that, even though he doesn't get a majority supporting him, the tens of millions that do support him stay happy and to try to make as many people as possible happy. With the current system we have the candidates sticking to a handful of swing states and while in office, if they re making decisions based purely on getting reelected, they will govern based on making their base happy and on pleasing the swing states.

I'm not saying it gets rid of any particular problem in regards to every state getting equal time, but the electoral college does not in any way ensure that candidates / presidents have to consider every state when making decisions.
 
Back
Top Bottom