• 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

The problem that people have is, they here democracy, and think that it's direct, and it's not, they are either ignorant to the fact, or unwilling to accept the fact, that the United States has NEVER BEEN a direct democracy, that it its a representative democracy,
 
And it would be an equally bad situation if Hillz had won in the same manner and, given that she is prone to a bit of arrogance herself, a good many independents and conservatives would be making the same "EC is an unmitigated disaster" argument right now. And that's because she too could be labeled as somewhat guilty of having "never appealed to the nation as a whole."

The only saving grace is, she's less bat**** crazy than Trump.

And what's the situation if she wins because all she had to do is to appeal to voters in certain sections of the country?
 
That is conjecture based on nothing but projection

Yes, it IS indeed conjecture but it's not based on projection.
But conjecture, GUILTY AS CHARGED, except that I might even be willing to "make book" on my assertion, given that familiar patterns in electoral politics abound that fit the exact same mold.

There is no sensible way for me to say that MY opinion is "right" and yours (whatever it might be) on the matter is "wrong", and I am not attempting to claim any such thing.
I am just voicing my hunch that many conservatives and indies would be inspired to broach the EC unmitigated disaster argument on the heels of a Hillary victory in 2016.

You don't agree with MY hunch? Oh well, that's fine.
 

No, we do not. Votes in small states are effectively 'worth' more than votes in populous states. And in Tennessee, which goes reliably Republican, my vote essentially doesn't count, and Tennessee is mostly ignored by the Presidential campaigns because campaigning here is a waste of time. The same is true for Republicans in CA. No one running for President could give a damn about them, and no one tries to swing those Republicans or independents in CA because it's so heavily democratic that there is no point to trying.

And we've got several people on this thread parroting arguments made explicitly very often that the purpose of the EC is at least in part to ensure that rural votes are worth more per person than urban votes. All those saying they don't want the major population centers deciding elections are arguing for those who live in big cities to have their votes count LESS than those living out in the country in low-population states.
 
Yes, it IS indeed conjecture but it's not based on projection.
But conjecture, GUILTY AS CHARGED, except that I might even be willing to "make book" on my assertion, given that familiar patterns in electoral politics abound that fit the exact same mold.

There is no sensible way for me to say that MY opinion is "right" and yours (whatever it might be) on the matter is "wrong", and I am not attempting to claim any such thing.
I am just voicing my hunch that many conservatives and indies would be inspired to broach the EC unmitigated disaster argument on the heels of a Hillary victory in 2016.

You don't agree with MY hunch? Oh well, that's fine.

LOL fair enough, but no, I doubt many would be bitching about the EC if the shoe was on the other foot...much less trying to bring amendments up to do away with a core part of the constitution.

Don't get me wrong, there will ALWAYS be some that bitch and whine......but not to the degree I have seen in the past 2 years.
 
This is a really weird 2020 election cycle that is brewing. The primary platform of the Democrats so far is "Change the Fundamental Structure of the Constitution and Federal Government to Favor Democrats"...

Running against Democrats is like playing Candyland with a 4 year old... the want to change the rules to suit them.

I guess we'll all check with you before debating the EC about the proper time for such discussion. If it's not 20 months or so out from the next Presidential election, when should we have this debate?
 
In Federalist 68 Hamilton makes the case for the EC to be a buffer between the electorate and a charismatic un-dignified and unqualified Con-Man. The idea that even if the electorate in general was fooled by a con-man there would be a buffer of educated electors to keep such a person from becoming president. We saw how that worked for us, which proves the EC is obsolete; if it ever was viable it no longer is.
 
Everyone has a right to move to a small population state. I'd even encourage it.

Your problem is that you hate the Federal system and don't want STATES treated the same. But then left wing progressive politics has always favored a monarchy...

That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"
 
~~~~~~
DENIAL is not a river in Egypt…

The History of the Democratic Party – Rooted in Slavery ...
The History of the Democratic Party – Rooted in Slavery - Revolutionary Workers Group...
If Congress remained under the control of the Democrats, the slave owners would control the wealth of the country. Between the Northern industrialists and the Southern plantation-owners a deadly struggle was developing over which system of exploitation would rule …
************
Democrats want to keep you on the plantation
Millennial Views...
By being on these programs you become a financial slave to the government having to keep them happy. The democrats have corralled you into big cities away from their white constituents who live in the suburbs. They also conduct population control through aborting mostly black babies.

Why are you posting links to commie agitprop?

re history - you seem to have slept from about 1960 to 2016 or so. Maybe you remember that McCarthy dude. He died of alcoholism, but he was the prototype Trumper.
 
No, we do not. Votes in small states are effectively 'worth' more than votes in populous states. And in Tennessee, which goes reliably Republican, my vote essentially doesn't count, and Tennessee is mostly ignored by the Presidential campaigns because campaigning here is a waste of time. The same is true for Republicans in CA. No one running for President could give a damn about them, and no one tries to swing those Republicans or independents in CA because it's so heavily democratic that there is no point to trying.

And we've got several people on this thread parroting arguments made explicitly very often that the purpose of the EC is at least in part to ensure that rural votes are worth more per person than urban votes. All those saying they don't want the major population centers deciding elections are arguing for those who live in big cities to have their votes count LESS than those living out in the country in low-population states.

No, I don't think they are,

I think what they are saying is those votes in the big cities/states, shouldn't be the ONLY ones that matter.....

Do away with the EC, and watch what happens in campaigns,

CA, TX, FL, OH, IL, NY, PA, NJ, etc, that is where they go, they will go to every population center...and ignore the less populated areas
 
I appreciate that as an argument, but do is there anything to support it? Citations? Studies? I'm serious here. You have a hypothesis, but does it have validity?

First of all, I don't think it is an end run around the Constitution.
Article II (Executive Branch), Section 1 (The President) states, in pertinent part: 48 of the States currently have "winner-take-all" provisions for selecting electors, but Nebraska and Maine do it proportionally. One suggestion is that all States adopt the proportional approach, but nothing requires that. Why winner-take-all? To get candidates to campaign there. Political, yes, but not unconstitutional. Some States require that electors be "pledged" and even enforce that with penalties. Others do not. Is that a constitutionality issue? Nope. Neither is the popular vote proposal.

Also the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Either way, it's a constitutional loser, and a thinly veiled attempt to grab power by changing the rules. There are two sides to every argument, and I have no doubt SCOTUS is not in favor of blue state mob rule, where red states are under served because they don't count anymore. If anything the Electoral College also helps fight voter fraud. It's hard to steal individual states, but easy to steal a country.
 
The team which gets the most points should win.... just lie the candidate who gets the most votes should win.

The team that does get the most points, wins. The team that gets the most points in Michigan wins; the team that gets the most points in New York wins; the team that gets the most points in North Carolina... ECT.
Ironically, proposals such as the compact could lead to a situation where the person who receives the least points in Michigan, or New York or North Carolina wins
 
That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"

These are the folks that worship Trump and say no laws apply to him. We need the hoot owls screeching about "process crimes" about now.
 
That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"

It's not, it's a direct democracy, which is NOT the United States.
 
The team that does get the most points, wins. The team that gets the most points in Michigan wins; the team that gets the most points in New York wins; the team that gets the most points in North Carolina... ECT.
Ironically, proposals such as the compact could lead to a situation where the person who receives the least points in Michigan, or New York or North Carolina wins

No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.
 
I guess we'll all check with you before debating the EC about the proper time for such discussion. If it's not 20 months or so out from the next Presidential election, when should we have this debate?

Clearly, the Democrats are having the debate because they lost...
Just like the debate about the numerical composition of the Supreme Court.
 
No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.

Again, not what the United States is.....do you understand the difference between direct and representative Democracy?
 
I don’t see how NPV contracts solve for any of that. In fact, it would render up to 49% of votes as worth 0. You might as well not even bother counting in most States.

No, each vote in every state is now relevant, which isn't true today in effect.
 
No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.

And if you abolish the EC, you only matter if you live in a populous state, you don't see the irony there?
 
No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.

Your vote matters in non-swing states as well.
 
How do I know what is in the Constitution what your team is done changing it? You would have to add something to address a popular vote tie, that is what I'm requesting. The Constitution today has tie breaking procedures and has covered every eventuality.

I'll take the orderly transition of power while you hunt for a way to make things disorderly by claiming a tie isn't possible. There have been plenty of things in my lifetime that were impossible, and yet they have happened.
Here is how
The National Popular Vote Compact works. There's a link to help. The possibility of a popular vote "tie" is infinitesimal. A tie under the compact is mathematically impossible, because it represents a majority of the votes.
 
Again, not what the United States is.....do you understand the difference between direct and representative Democracy?

Sure, and that has zero to do with the election of a POTUS. The EC was only useful for handing slave states more votes for the white minority there, and as a possible check on voters wanting to elect an incompetent, ill-meaning, corrupt idiot.
 
God, save me from idiotic posts.
 
No, we do not. Votes in small states are effectively 'worth' more than votes in populous states. And in Tennessee, which goes reliably Republican, my vote essentially doesn't count, and Tennessee is mostly ignored by the Presidential campaigns because campaigning here is a waste of time. The same is true for Republicans in CA. No one running for President could give a damn about them, and no one tries to swing those Republicans or independents in CA because it's so heavily democratic that there is no point to trying.

And we've got several people on this thread parroting arguments made explicitly very often that the purpose of the EC is at least in part to ensure that rural votes are worth more per person than urban votes. All those saying they don't want the major population centers deciding elections are arguing for those who live in big cities to have their votes count LESS than those living out in the country in low-population states.

Why would one expect candidates to spend time in Tennessee without the EC or with some sort of compact? The votes aren't there. More bang for the buck in NY or CA.
 
Last edited:
That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"

Because, as the Democrats have so readily demonstrated, they are all for abandoning the constitution when it doesn't favor them, and the EC is one of the things that ensures that majority doesn't rule in perpetuity.

They are close to the "one person, one vote, one time" form of government.
 
Back
Top Bottom