• 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!

The Electoral College: Purpose, Problems, Alternatives

haymarket said:
A tyranny of the minority is preferable to you?
Click to expand...

There is no tyranny of the minority. Power changes hands regularly and peacefully in the current system.
 
Perotista said:
I have no problem with the electoral college.
Click to expand...

Why do you favor a system which rewards smaller states like Wyoming or North Dakota with three to four times the weight behind a voters vote than those who live in a larger state like California or New York?
 
jmotivator said:
There is no tyranny of the minority. Power changes hands regularly and peacefully in the current system.
Click to expand...

And it is often transferred to those who finished second leaving those who finished first out in the cold.

Save all your fancy words for dummies who fall for them. As a Republican you will never give up your built in advantage because you perceive yourself as benefiting from it.

All your justification is just talk amounting to sheer BS.
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. They are sick and tired of being forced to accept the votes of Ohioans, Floridians, and Carolinians vote for President. I know I am.
Click to expand...

Darn other Americans and their... [checks notes]... Not voting for who I want!!

The EC is unnecessary and illogical. However, it would require a convention. A convention is a dangerous idea for all involved.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is perfectly logical if your goal is to avoid monarchy and single party rule. You want monarchy and single party rule, therefor you want it abolished.

The compact is the best way forward.
Click to expand...

As I keep pointing out, the compact is doomed to failure. It is only held together so long as it is not necessary.

The whole point of the compact is to compel members states to delegate electoral votes to a party that the state did not actually vote for.. and that is the very situation that will precipitate a state's withdrawal from the compact.
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. They are sick and tired of being forced to accept the votes of Ohioans, Floridians, and Carolinians vote for President. I know I am.

The EC is unnecessary and illogical. However, it would require a convention. A convention is a dangerous idea for all involved.

The compact is the best way forward.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY the reason the EC exists....lol Amazing that you don't see it.
 
jmotivator said:
Darn other Americans and their... [checks notes]... Not voting for who I want!!



Nope. It is perfectly logical if your goal is to avoid monarchy and single party rule. You want monarchy and single party rule, therefor you want it abolished.



As I keep pointing out, the compact is doomed to failure. It is only held together so long as it is not necessary.

The whole point of the compact is to compel members states to delegate electoral votes to a party that the state did not actually vote for.. and that is the very situation that will precipitate a state's withdrawal from the compact.
Click to expand...

Disagree. But whatever, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided and dismissive it is.
 
sjmay said:
This is EXACTLY the reason the EC exists....lol Amazing that you don't see it.
Click to expand...

The EC has ensured these states decide the election. With how partisan this country is, it doesn't matter who the candidate is. It's amazing you don't see it.

I tire of these three states determining our future and it must come to an end.
 
Obscurity said:
The EC has ensured these states decide the election. With how partisan this country is, it doesn't matter who the candidate is. It's amazing you don't see it.

I tire of these three states determining our future and it must come to an end.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't.....

What you really want is the 10 biggest urban areas to determine your future.....just admit it.
 
sjmay said:
No it hasn't.....

What you really want is the 10 biggest urban areas to determine your future.....just admit it.
Click to expand...

Admit your own bias that you simply want to win and the EC system rewards you and gives you the best chance of it and all the rest is just self serving BS.
 
haymarket said:
And it is often transferred to those who finished second leaving those who finished first out in the cold.
Click to expand...

Nope, they finished first in the system that they were running in, not the imaginary system you want to exist.

Save all your fancy words for dummies who fall for them. As a Republican you will never give up your built in advantage because you perceive yourself as benefiting from it.
Click to expand...

My "built in advantage"? :roll:

Also, which word in my response was too fancy for you?

All your justification is just talk amounting to sheer BS.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's perfectly clear, and historically accurate.

.. sorry, does "historically" have too many syllables for you? Wait... do you understand the word "syllables"?
 
haymarket said:
Admit your own bias that you simply want to win and the EC system rewards you and gives you the best chance of it and all the rest is just self serving BS.
Click to expand...

LOL I want to win? No....

I don't want 5 cities to dictate to the rest of America what is and is not important, there is a reason the EC was put in place, and that was to prevent that.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope, they finished first in the system that they were running in, not the imaginary system you want to exist.



My "built in advantage"? :roll:

Also, which word in my response was too fancy for you?



Nope. It's perfectly clear, and historically accurate.

.. sorry, does "historically" have too many syllables for you? Wait... do you understand the word "syllables"?
Click to expand...

The EC favors the Party you favor. So you are for it and support it. All the rest is just BS.

Q: Why do you favor a system from the 1700s that rewards voters in the smallest states with three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters from the largest states?

A: Because it favors the Republican candidate and you want the Republican mandate to get picked as the winner.

Everything else is all self serving garbage.
 
haymarket said:
The EC favors the Party you favor. So you are for it and support it. All the rest is just BS.

Q: Why do you favor a system from the 1700s that rewards voters in the smallest states with three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters from the largest states?

A: Because it favors the Republican candidate and you want the Republican mandate to get picked as the winner.

Everything else is all self serving garbage.
Click to expand...

How do you get to that? " rewards voters in the smallest states with three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters from the largest states"
 
haymarket said:
Why do you favor a system which rewards smaller states like Wyoming or North Dakota with three to four times the weight behind a voters vote than those who live in a larger state like California or New York?
Click to expand...

I think the union of the several states explains that. The fact we live in a representative republic and not a direct democracy also adds to it. Those who live in California and New York have a direct say in how those states award their electoral votes, so do the people of Wyoming and North Dakota. California and New York has 84 electoral votes vs. 6 for Wyoming and North Dakota. That's quite an advantage for the former two states. But an advantage they deserve based on population.

What I see in those who want to do away with the electoral college is folks who want a completely different type of government. I see it as more of a knee jerk reaction to losing an election than anything of substance. We're slowly moving towards a direct democracy anyway.

As a representative republic, we the people elected our state legislatures and those state legislatures being the people's representatives decided whom would get their state's electoral votes in the beginning. A true representative republic. Then after the civil war, all states finally went to the popular vote. More of a direct democracy as it bypassed the state legislatures whom we elected to represent us. At least at the state level. That gives the people of each state a direct say in whom their state would cast its electoral votes.

We seen more movement towards a direct democracy in 1913 when senators were taken away from the state legislatures to be decided by popular vote. Originally the House of Representatives was to be the peoples House, representing the people. The senate was to represent the states. Going to popular vote more or less made the senate more representative of the people than the states. Actually today, all our Representatives and senators represent political parties and not the people. It's what political parties want, not the people that is important.

But we're sooner or later discard all vestiges of our representative republic in favor of a direct democracy. It's coming. Once that happens, we'll have mob rule by the majority. Much like in the senate today where the nuclear option stripped the minority party of all its rights.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope,
Click to expand...

All the rest from is is self serving BS.

Admit it, the EC picks your guy five times ahead of the choice of the people and you like it that way.
 
haymarket said:
The EC favors the Party you favor. So you are for it and support it. All the rest is just BS.
Click to expand...

Well, no, it favors the candidate who wins the most states in elections that are very close. Right now the Republicans have that tie breaker.. but maybe that means the Democrats need to appeal to the flyover states instead of pounding their fists and scheming on how to silence them. Just a thought.

I mean, as currently configured, a candidate can win the Presidency by winning only 11 states... meaning that 78 of those advantage seats wouldn't even be needed.

Challenge: You have to appeal to Texas as much as California...

Q: Why do you favor a system from the 1700s that rewards voters in the smallest states with three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters from the largest states?
Click to expand...

A: If voting weight means that much to you then move to a small state. You're welcome!

Everything else is all self serving garbage.
Click to expand...

You put the Hay in Straw man arguments, Haymarket. :lamo
 
Perotista said:
I think the union of the several states explains that. The fact we live in a representative republic and not a direct democracy also adds to it. Those who live in California and New York have a direct say in how those states award their electoral votes, so do the people of Wyoming and North Dakota. California and New York has 84 electoral votes vs. 6 for Wyoming and North Dakota. That's quite an advantage for the former two states. But an advantage they deserve based on population.

What I see in those who want to do away with the electoral college is folks who want a completely different type of government. I see it as more of a knee jerk reaction to losing an election than anything of substance. We're slowly moving towards a direct democracy anyway.

As a representative republic, we the people elected our state legislatures and those state legislatures being the people's representatives decided whom would get their state's electoral votes in the beginning. A true representative republic. Then after the civil war, all states finally went to the popular vote. More of a direct democracy as it bypassed the state legislatures whom we elected to represent us. At least at the state level. That gives the people of each state a direct say in whom their state would cast its electoral votes.

We seen more movement towards a direct democracy in 1913 when senators were taken away from the state legislatures to be decided by popular vote. Originally the House of Representatives was to be the peoples House, representing the people. The senate was to represent the states. Going to popular vote more or less made the senate more representative of the people than the states. Actually today, all our Representatives and senators represent political parties and not the people. It's what political parties want, not the people that is important.

But we're sooner or later discard all vestiges of our representative republic in favor of a direct democracy. It's coming. Once that happens, we'll have mob rule by the majority. Much like in the senate today where the nuclear option stripped the minority party of all its rights.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand what MOB RULE is for you to blatantly misuse it like you just did.

Why did you favor a system that rewards a state like Wyoming or North Dakota with three to four times the weight behind a voter than larger states like New York or California?
 
jmotivator said:
Well, no, it favors the candidate who wins the most states in elections that are very close.
Click to expand...

Its not just now. Its through our history as a nation.

The system has FIVE TIMES picked a different candidate that the people picked and FIVE TIMES a Democrat was overlooked by the EC.

That is why you support it and all you verbiage is just diarrhea of the mouth.
 
sjmay said:
How do you get to that? " rewards voters in the smallest states with three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters from the largest states"
Click to expand...

Math does not lie. Divide the number of people who vote is the smallest states by the electoral vote and do the same for larger states and you will find smaller states have three to four times the weight behind their voters as voters in larger states do. The math does not lie.

This will show you the numbers and the numbers do not lie

Presidential election: A map showing the vote power of all 50 states.
 
jmotivator said:
You stopped arguing a few posts ago, you should get word to your fingers.
Click to expand...

I called out your self serving BS several posts ago. And that burns you.
 
haymarket said:
Its not just now. Its through our history as a nation.
Click to expand...

The system of States being the tiebreaker in close elections has been their since the beginning? NO WAY!!

The system has FIVE TIMES picked a different candidate that the people picked and FIVE TIMES a Democrat was overlooked by the EC.
Click to expand...

FIVE TIMES the EC picked the president that most states wanted when the vote was very close. Mission accomplished.

That is why you support it and all you verbiage is just diarrhea of the mouth.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Your mind reading is still on the fritz.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The EC is a vestige of slavery and needs to go.
Click to expand...

I believe the arguments for the EC were made mostly by those who opposed slavery.

The purpose of the EC was to ensure that all states had a voice in elections that affect everybody. Without the EC, a very few heavily populated states would be able to control all the others.

I would happily give up the EC, however, if those who want to eliminate it would agree to a sister constitutional amendments that only citizens factor into congressional apportionments and only property owners, those who pay income taxes, and retirees are eligible to vote.
 
jmotivator said:
The system of States being the tiebreaker in close elections has been their since the beginning? NO WAY!!



FIVE TIMES the EC picked the president that most states wanted when the vote was very close. Mission accomplished.



Well, no. Your mind reading is still on the fritz.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a STATE without the PEOPLE who constitute it. You favor a system which gives three to four times the weight to voters in the smallest states over voters in the largest states purely because you thin it benefits the Republican party.

You don't give a tinkers damn about anything else and its all just self serving BS from you.
 
haymarket said:
I called out your self serving BS several posts ago. And that burns you.
Click to expand...

LOL! Oh Haymarket, you are a legend in your own mind. Maybe the Democrats should try governing in a fashion that the EC was designed to promote, rather than focusing on urban areas. and thumbing their noses at "fly over states".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom