• 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:
Perhaps to your mind - it is. In reality - it happens with every presidential election.
Click to expand...

It's basic civics. The populace elects the electors, and then the electors choose the president.

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of civics expert or something?
 
Beowulf said:
It's basic civics. The populace elects the electors, and then the electors choose the president.

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of civics expert or something?
Click to expand...

This has already been explained to you.
 
haymarket said:
This has already been explained to you.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "this has already been explained to you." I love it.

So you're saying that the general populace elects the members of the electoral college, no?
 
Beowulf said:
Okay:

So in this national popular vote, the electors are chosen?
Click to expand...

That quote says nothing about Electors but rather the position of several arguing the issue here.
 
Beowulf said:
So how do electors become electors then?
Click to expand...

We have already covered that.

Why do you attempt to waste my time asking questions that have been already been answered?
 
I am still waiting for someone to explain how states would loose political power if the EC was eliminated or how only a few states would be choosing the President.
 
haymarket said:
You build your house on swampy land . Right from the start - Parties appoint nobody as Electors. They only nominate slates of Electors and then the people as voters decide which competing slate wins that election and only then are they Electors.
Click to expand...

Each State legislature is free to decide how the Electors are determined as long as it meets the Constitutional requirements.

As I stated, for Oregon, each party that has a candidate on the ballot will submit to the Sec. of State a list of names who will be their Electors. The Sec of State will review the name to make sure they are within the Constitutional requirements set forth. It is up to the parties to select the Electors, when the General Election is finished the candidate with the most votes win their parties Electors, Oregon is a winner take all State. I've already posted a link to how Oregon chooses it's electors, did you bother to read it?

Just in case you missed it, here it is again: FAQ: Who are Oregon's electors and what's their role in electing the next president? - oregonlive.com
 
Terryj said:
Each State legislature is free to decide how the Electors are determined as long as it meets the Constitutional requirements.

As I stated, for Oregon, each party that has a candidate on the ballot will submit to the Sec. of State a list of names who will be their Electors. The Sec of State will review the name to make sure they are within the Constitutional requirements set forth. It is up to the parties to select the Electors, when the General Election is finished the candidate with the most votes win their parties Electors, Oregon is a winner take all State. I've already posted a link to how Oregon chooses it's electors, did you bother to read it?
Click to expand...

All the parties do is NOMINATE the people they want to see as ELECTORS. They then run against other slates of competing ELECTORS that are chosen by other parties. The final election to those positions is up to the voters when they cast their votes for President.
 
Glitch said:
No, you haven't provided evidence. All you have done is to try and twist the US Constitution to suit your agenda. It doesn't work that way. For example, your insistence that "shall" is not "must" when under the law it clearly is. "Shall" in the law is imperative or mandatory. So when the US Constitution states that "[e]ach State shall appoint..." it is really saying that each State MUST appoint...

You will also note the word "appoint" in the Clause. Not "elect" but rather "appoint." That should be your first clue that State legislatures appoint their Electors and do not elect them.
Click to expand...



You must not believe that the current method for selecting electors is constitutional. The following are excerpts, my italics, from the article in the link given further below:

“Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their ballots for President.”

Meaning, the political parties/state legislators choose only potential electors. Those who actually become electors are selected from the potential electors by the voters casting their ballots for President.

“…on Election Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state Electors.”

Reiterating the fact that the voters decide by popular vote the selection of Electors.

“The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential Electors are appointed as the state's Electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors”

Reiterating the fact that the state appoints only potential Electors, not the actual Electors.

“Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate”

Just another reference to the fact of popular vote deciding the electorate.

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

If you read the full article, you’ll get the full context and find that my excerpts are, indeed, in context. You’ll notice it is often the term “potential” is used to do with the parties’ involvement with the Electors and with “appointment” thereof. You’ll notice it is often the term “select” is used to do with the voters involvement with the Electors.

The states, contrary to appointing the actual Electors, as you say is mandatory according to A3, S1, C2, are in reality selected by popular vote of the President. The states find that A3, S1, C2 does not make it mandatory that the actual Electors are appointed by the state but only the potential Electors.

What part of “selecting Electors by popular vote” vs. “appointing potential electors by political parties/legislators” do you not understand? Because, the fact is, you can’t refute the facts of the matter that every state operates under the method of selecting Electors by popular vote. Do you believe that is unconstitutional? Please advise.
 
bluesmoke said:
You must not believe that the current method for selecting electors is constitutional. The following are excerpts, my italics, from the article in the link given further below:

“Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their ballots for President.”

Meaning, the political parties/state legislators choose only potential electors. Those who actually become electors are selected from the potential electors by the voters casting their ballots for President.

“…on Election Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state Electors.”

Reiterating the fact that the voters decide by popular vote the selection of Electors.

“The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential Electors are appointed as the state's Electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors”

Reiterating the fact that the state appoints only potential Electors, not the actual Electors.

“Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate”

Just another reference to the fact of popular vote deciding the electorate.

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

If you read the full article, you’ll get the full context and find that my excerpts are, indeed, in context. You’ll notice it is often the term “potential” is used to do with the parties’ involvement with the Electors and with “appointment” thereof. You’ll notice it is often the term “select” is used to do with the voters involvement with the Electors.

The states, contrary to appointing the actual Electors, as you say is mandatory according to A3, S1, C2, are in reality selected by popular vote of the President. The states find that A3, S1, C2 does not make it mandatory that the actual Electors are appointed by the state but only the potential Electors.

What part of “selecting Electors by popular vote” vs. “appointing potential electors by political parties/legislators” do you not understand? Because, the fact is, you can’t refute the facts of the matter that every state operates under the method of selecting Electors by popular vote. Do you believe that is unconstitutional? Please advise.
Click to expand...

A most excellent post.
 
haymarket said:
All the parties do is NOMINATE the people they want to see as ELECTORS. They then run against other slates of competing ELECTORS that are chosen by other parties. The final election to those positions is up to the voters when they cast their votes for President.
Click to expand...

Correct. The electors are elected. And then the electors choose the president.
 
Beowulf said:
Correct. The electors are elected. And then the electors choose the president.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you are no longer falsely claiming that the Electors are appointed. That is progress.

You have still to make that same progress on your comments about the Electors choosing the President. They have no real choice since they vote for the candidate who won the state and whose party selected them. With the notable exception of a very few faithless electors in a few elections, they have a 99% per cent rate. So no actual CHOICE is exercised.
 
haymarket said:
Glad to see you are no longer falsely claiming that the Electors are appointed. That is progress.

You have still to make that same progress on your comments about the Electors choosing the President. They have no real choice since they vote for the candidate who won the state and whose party selected them. With the notable exception of a very few faithless electors in a few elections, they have a 99% per cent rate. So no actual CHOICE is exercised.
Click to expand...

I'm simply attempting to familiarize you with the constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;"
 
Beowulf said:
I'm simply attempting to familiarize you with the constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;"
Click to expand...

"IN SUCH MANNER AS THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF MAY DIRECT" is an election which is conducted in every state all over the nation and in places which are not states and all comprise the USA.

But you already knew that because it was explained to you days ago.
 
haymarket said:
A most excellent post.
Click to expand...



Thanks. I appreciate you saying so. I don't mind developing debate to go somewhere. To acknowledge that states can take the meaning of A3S1C2 as to select Electors by popular vote if they so choose, but also have the right to directly appoint Electors, would be a recognition of the practical and operative facts of the matter and might move the debate forward to, well, somewhere.
 
bluesmoke said:
Thanks. I appreciate you saying so. I don't mind developing debate to go somewhere. To acknowledge that states can take the meaning of A3S1C2 as to select Electors by popular vote if they so choose, but also have the right to directly appoint Electors, would be a recognition of the practical and operative facts of the matter and might move the debate forward to, well, somewhere.
Click to expand...

We have fifty states out of fifty that elect their Electors when people vote for the presidential candidate of their choice. And that reality is good enough for me.
 
haymarket said:
"IN SUCH MANNER AS THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF MAY DIRECT" is an election which is conducted in every state all over the nation and in places which are not states and all comprise the USA.

But you already knew that because it was explained to you days ago.
Click to expand...

Sure. The legislature could choose to do that. Or they could pick names out of the phone book.

And then those electors vote by ballot for the president.
 
Beowulf said:
Sure. The legislature could choose to do that. Or they could pick names out of the phone book.

And then those electors vote by ballot for the president.
Click to expand...

I am not concerned with your fantasies. Reality is all that counts.
 
haymarket said:
I am not concerned with your fantasies. Reality is all that counts.
Click to expand...

Right. Reality:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom