• 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

Born Free said:
You nailed it. We now know why you want the EC abolished. 1. Your all pissed you lost the election to Trump. 2. Your all pissed that Trump appointed two constitutionalist SC Judges rather than your activist judges that write law that you could not get passed in congress. 3. You all want to change the voting age to 16, more Dem votes. All three points of change is because you can't win so you have to change the law.

Your post is a perfect example of why you want the changes. SO YOU CAN WIN!!!!!
Click to expand...

i don't respond to bull**** with anything more time consuming than this post.
 
haymarket said:
Actually those smaller states you think are being protected are pretty much ignored by the candidates.

oh - by the way - slavery has been gone for a very long time now. It is the year 2019. Do keep up.
Click to expand...

~~~~~~
As far as you claim that slavery has been gone for a long time now, why have Democrats made it a point and still scream for reparations and end of the Electoral College...? BTW have you forgotten about the plantation cities created by Democrats? You know places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles etc.....


A top House Democrat just floated the idea of reparations ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/11/a-top...
In terms of reparations, and I think the president has made this point, there's a whole expanse of issues we need to address that [reparations] would not wholly deal with.
************​
Democrats Push For Electoral College Reform After Hillary Loss...
Something's Gone Terribly Wrong | HuffPost...
Dec 06, 2016 · WASHINGTON ― A group of House Democrats on Tuesday gathered to discuss reforms to the way the country elects its president ― namely the Electoral College ― after Hillary Clinton lost the
************​
Elizabeth Warren wants to end the United States electoral ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/19/elizabeth...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Monday endorsed ending the electoral college, arguing for a system where “every vote matters.” Many Democrats, including Warren, have disparaged the ...
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
That movement only lasts as long as the blue states that join it see a benefit. It would never last if the results didn't favor the blue states.
Click to expand...
Or so you would like to believe. But, that is just an artifact of the reality that Democrats have outpolled Republicans nationwide for over two decades, yet the Senate and White House are still in Republican hands.
The Democratic candidate has won a popular vote majority in six of the last seven presidential elections. Over that same time period, Democrats have secured 30 million more votes for the U.S. Senate than their Republican counterparts. In 2016 alone, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and Democratic candidates received 11 million more votes for the Senate. The record here is clear: Over the past 26 years, the American people have voted, over and over again, to give Democrats the authority
Click to expand...
(The Electoral College Favors Republicans(National Review) Yet, the EC and 2-Senators per State keeps a non-majority party in power. (One can appreciate the frustration)
 
I want to see majority rule like the other western democracies. Our EC has not spared us from idiocy and corruption rising to power.

We should just deal with the corruption on its own and decide the electoral process separately. The EC has slowed the progress of our country for a long time and has allowed regressivism a distorted level of representation at the highest authority. It needs to end.

The opposite is also paradoxically true. If we have a polarized population, the EC is not allowing it to properly play out. It artificially caps the pendulum of power from going full tilt, which I believe is a conflict our country truly needs in order to wake up and smell the roses. We have pandered too much to ideologues based on "considering both sides" and being "fair and balanced", when it is clear from years of poll data that the majority tends to fall on one side. That side should be determining the lion's share of policy and sending this country into its appropriate direction. To me, this is what "draining the swamp" would really look like. No more bickering and forestalling our destiny at the behest of a small group of people.

It's not like regressivism will lose representation, their representation will be proportional to its minority position, rather than being given false equality. It's time we weed the wackos and cronies out of our political system and start growing up as a nation. The majority can do that if we just cut out the middle men.
 
Just remember, that if John Kerry flipped 50k votes in Ohio, he would have won the presidency but lost the popular vote. That would have ended the EC right then and there. THe EC is currently the best way for a Republican to win the WH.

So I blame Ohio for the EC remaining. Damn you Ohio!
 
Doc91478 said:
~~~~~~
As far as you claim that slavery has been gone for a long time now, why have Democrats made it a point and still scream for reparations and end of the Electoral College...? BTW have you forgotten about the plantation cities created by Democrats? You know places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles etc.....


A top House Democrat just floated the idea of reparations ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/11/a-top...
In terms of reparations, and I think the president has made this point, there's a whole expanse of issues we need to address that [reparations] would not wholly deal with.
************​
Democrats Push For Electoral College Reform After Hillary Loss...
Something's Gone Terribly Wrong | HuffPost...
Dec 06, 2016 · WASHINGTON ― A group of House Democrats on Tuesday gathered to discuss reforms to the way the country elects its president ― namely the Electoral College ― after Hillary Clinton lost the
************​
Elizabeth Warren wants to end the United States electoral ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/19/elizabeth...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Monday endorsed ending the electoral college, arguing for a system where “every vote matters.” Many Democrats, including Warren, have disparaged the ...
Click to expand...

Your inane partisan ramblings have nothing to do with current reality.
 
NWRatCon said:
Or so you would like to believe. But, that is just an artifact of the reality that Democrats have outpolled Republicans nationwide for over two decades, yet the Senate and White House are still in Republican hands.
Click to expand...

It's the belief that that will continue in perpetuity that drives the demand to eliminate the EC. It collapses the minute that blue states have to pledge ECs to a Republican.

(The Electoral College Favors Republicans(National Review) Yet, the EC and 2-Senators per State keeps a non-majority party in power. (One can appreciate the frustration)
Click to expand...

Indeed, I see their frustration, but the system was designed specifically to push back against majority rule and one party rule AND to avoid the tyranny of urban centers over rural America. It's working as designed.
 
Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

Here is the scoring for each quarter.

1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?
 
jmotivator said:
Indeed, I see their frustration, but the system was designed specifically to push back against majority rule and one party rule AND to avoid the tyranny of urban centers over rural America. It's working as designed.
Click to expand...

There weren't parties when it was designed. And only 5% of the population lived in an urban center at that time. It works nothing like its original intent. (Of course the original mechanics of the EC worked so poorly we needed the 12th amendment to try and fix it almost immediately.)
 
Greenbeard said:
There weren't parties when it was designed. And only 5% of the population lived in an urban center at that time. It works nothing like its original intent. (Of course the original mechanics of the EC worked so poorly we needed the 12th amendment to try and fix it almost immediately.)
Click to expand...

Whether there are parties or not is immaterial, all that does is add color contrast to the issue that the EC is intended to remedy.
 
jmotivator said:
Whether there are parties or not is immaterial, all that does is add color contrast to the issue that the EC is intended to remedy.
Click to expand...

Which is what? You already mentioned urbanism and partisanship, neither of which were relevant factors in the late 1780s. The real intent was to allow slave populations to count toward electoral influence and to keep decision-making in the hands of a small number of elites. Neither of which are compelling rationales today.
 
Im fairly certain that the EC would work when:#1 districts were set and left alone and , #2 if ONLY US CITIZENS were actually permitted to vote
 
No need to scrap the EC once enough states join the national popular vote compact. It's constitutional and it dismisses the need for a constitutional convention.
 
Greenbeard said:
Which is what? You already mentioned urbanism and partisanship, neither of which were relevant factors in the late 1780s.
Click to expand...

In fact they were relevant factors. The whole point of a party is to aggregate ideological like minded or mostly ideologically like minded people into blocks. The same powers that divided the country on it's formation continued straight through the party system. And while population was more diffused in the colonial times, the issue of population centers versus rural living was still very real.

The real intent was to allow slave populations to count toward electoral influence and to keep decision-making in the hands of a small number of elites. Neither of which are compelling rationales today.
Click to expand...

False. The intent was to create a FEDERAL government rather than a monarchy, where individual states had an equal say in the national government, balanced against the individual's interests through a representative House. While slavery was a concern for southern states, it was not the only issue that drove the desire for state sovereignty even for southerners. And there were also small northern states that would not like Virginia (the most populous state at the time) dictating to them how they should handle their state business through majority-rule voting.

Those concerns from ALL states informed the creation of the House and the Senate (House representing the people, Senate representing the states), and the EC was simply the combination of the two distinct concerns and that balance of power, into a voting system.

It is as valid today as it was back then, and anyone preaching the "because slavery" doesn't actually understand the formation, or the actual purpose, of the Electoral College.
 
Obscurity said:
No need to scrap the EC once enough states join the national popular vote compact. It's constitutional and it dismisses the need for a constitutional convention.
Click to expand...

As I keep pointing out, that plan only works so long as all the signatory states actually vote in line with the popular vote. In other words, the silly compact is only valid as long as it is not needed. The minute any of those signatory states votes in a way contrary to the popular vote, and the majority of their voters suddenly feel disenfranchised, the state will withdraw from the compact.
 
jmotivator said:
As I keep pointing out, that plan only works so long as all the signatory states actually vote in line with the popular vote. In other words, the silly compact is only valid as long as it is not needed. The minute any of those signatory states votes in a way contrary to the popular vote, and the majority of their voters suddenly feel disenfranchised, the state will withdraw from the compact.
Click to expand...

The compact is far from silly. The majority are sick and ****ing tired of the minority ruling.
 
Rogue Valley said:
You're just plain wrong.....

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars

Yes, The Electoral College Really Is A Vestige Of Slavery. It's Time To Get Rid Of It.

How the Electoral College Protected Slavery

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
Click to expand...

LOL.

...Vox. :roll:

"Some scholars"? My, how convincing...

Again, it is a bull**** argument. Did the EC give power to state legislatures to resist a Federal Dictatorship? Sure.. that meant it protected states with bad laws as well as good laws. But EVERY state had a vested interest in maintaining strong state governments as a check against centralized power. Small northern states were in favor just as much as southern states. The REAL reason for the House, Senate and EC formation was as a bulwark against monarchy.

The Electoral College wasn't built "because slavery", it was build, along with the House, Senate, and ALL checks and balances and coequal branches in the US system because the Founding fathers opposed tyranny, and built a system to reflect their distrust of the illusion of benevolent monarchy.

And it works! The Democrats and their followers are PISSED that they can't have single party rule, and so the entire Democrat platform in 2020 is on massive (unachievable, but feel good) structural changes to the US system to allow the tyranny of the majority.

The Democrats have reached the point where they are not just corrupted by achieved power, they are planning corruption when they get power.
 
Obscurity said:
The compact is far from silly. The majority are sick and ****ing tired of the minority ruling.
Click to expand...

Well, no, they are "sick and ****ing tired" of not having the dictatorship they think they deserve.
 
As long as small states and Republicans see an advantage to the Electoral College system, we are stuck with it. And they are right to see a built in advantage to it as five times the EC has picked the loser of the popular vote and five times a Democrat was passed over despite finishing first in the popular vote.
 
For those of you who support the EC.

Can you explain why you believe that the the tyranny of the minority is preferable to the tyranny of the majority?
 
jmotivator said:
The Democrats and their followers are PISSED that they can't have single party rule, and so the entire Democrat platform in 2020 is on massive (unachievable, but feel good) structural changes to the US system to allow the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

A tyranny of the minority is preferable to you?
 
NWRatCon said:
There is a poll thread that just started similar to this issue, but 1) I promised to start one, and 2) I think a more in-depth discussion is warranted. This is going to be a link-heavy opener.

First: The Electoral College was an invention of the new government in 1793. The population of the "new" United States was 3,929,214 divided into 13 States, and 65 Congressional Districts. The most populous State was Virginia, with 747,610 (but only 110,936 "Free white males", and 292,627 "slaves"). At 17.8 percent, the 1790 Census's proportion of slaves to the free population was the highest ever recorded by any census.1790 Census, Wikipedia. In short, the country that created the Electoral College was very different than the one we currently occupy.

Second: At the time of its creation, the President was elected by each State's legislature, not by popular vote. "The Constitution allowed each state to decide how to choose its presidential electors. In 1789, only Pennsylvania and Maryland held elections for this purpose; elsewhere, the state legislatures chose the electors." Presidential Elections - HISTORY "The 1824 presidential election was the first election in American history in which the popular vote mattered, as 18 [of 25] states chose presidential electors by popular vote in 1824 (six states still left the choice up to their state legislatures)." United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia, and sure enough, the eventual winner, John Quincy Adams, did not win the popular vote (Andrew Jackson got the most votes). Instead, Adams was elected by the House of Representatives with "Representatives from 13 out of 25 states voting in his favor."

Third: "The Electoral College and its procedure are established in the U.S. Constitution by Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4; and the Twelfth Amendment (which replaced Clause 3 after its ratification in 1804). Under Clause 2, each of the states casts as many electoral votes as the total number of its Senators and Representatives in Congress, while, per the Twenty-third Amendment ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. casts the same number of electoral votes as the least-represented state, which is three. Also under Clause 2, the manner for choosing electors is determined by each state legislature, not directly by the federal government. Many state legislatures previously selected their electors directly, but over time all of them switched to using the popular vote to help determine electors, which persists today. " Wikipedia

Fourth: "Presidential elections occur quadrennially with registered voters casting their ballots on Election Day, which since 1845 has been the first Tuesday after November 1. This date coincides with the general elections of various other federal, state, and local races; since local governments are responsible for managing elections, these races typically all appear on one ballot. The Electoral College electors then formally cast their electoral votes on the first Monday after December 12 at their respective state capitals."
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the electoral college. Although I would like to see a change or two which could be accomplished by the states themselves without a Constitutional Amendment. 48 states have a winner take all. I would modify that to it being a winner take all if a candidate wins a majority of the vote, 50% plus one vote. If no candidate wins a majority of the vote, then go by congressional district with the winner of that congressional district getting that CD's electoral vote. The candidate who won the state via a plurality, received the most votes but not a majority would then get the remaining 2 electoral votes based on each state having two senators. Maine and Nebraska now award their electoral votes via CD.

Since we're a union of the several states, 50 as of today. Each state having a say based upon their population, i.e. representatives and two senators is how it should be. We are a representative republic, not a direct democracy. Each and every voter has a say in their state in how their state will award their electoral votes. Each and every voter in California has a say in how California awards their 55 electoral votes, the same as the voters in Wyoming in how that state will award their three.

Unless we dissolve our union of the several states, do away with our representative republic in favor of a direct democracy, the electoral college should stay.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, no, they are "sick and ****ing tired" of not having the dictatorship they think they deserve.
Click to expand...

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