• 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

Beowulf said:
Here's the 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."
Click to expand...

And the language comes to life every four years when the people elect their Electors in voting for a presidential candidate and that part of the Constitution is realized.

But you and everybody else knows that.
 
BrotherFease said:
So does if we split the electors based on the state's popular vote.

There would be two hiccups though: (1) This changes how we vote for Presidents. We would have to change how our primary/caucuses run. (2) We would need to give candidates more time to campaign. With more states, more areas in play, you would need to make the campaign season longer.

But I am sure you wouldn't mind we voting for the nominee in May/June and the President in December. Keep in mind that the real election happens in December, not November.
Click to expand...

We need to get rid of the EC totally since it still gives unfair extra weight to some states over others.
 
haymarket said:
We need to get rid of the EC totally since it still gives unfair extra weight to some states over others.
Click to expand...

You need a constitutional amendment. Good luck getting that passed.

As far as the bold part, the EC does a good job of creating a balance. You live in a big state, you get more representatives. You live in a small state, your vote counts a little more. I do not see the unfairness, unless you're arguing that big states should take the entire pie.
 
BrotherFease said:
You need a constitutional amendment. Good luck getting that passed.

As far as the bold part, the EC does a good job of creating a balance. You live in a big state, you get more representatives. You live in a small state, your vote counts a little more. I do not see the unfairness, unless you're arguing that big states should take the entire pie.
Click to expand...

Oh but it will happen. As soon as the Republicans find themselves on the losing end of the lose the EC/but win the popular vote situation, watch how fast they become converts to the popular vote.

All I am arguing for is one person/one vote with all votes counting equally.
 
haymarket said:
And the language comes to life every four years when the people elect their Electors in voting for a presidential candidate and that part of the Constitution is realized.

But you and everybody else knows that.
Click to expand...

Of course. I and everybody else, and you know that every four years:

"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."

And then those electors vote by ballot for the president.
 
haymarket said:
Oh but it will happen. As soon as the Republicans find themselves on the losing end of the lose the EC/but win the popular vote situation, watch how fast they become converts to the popular vote.

All I am arguing for is one person/one vote with all votes counting equally.
Click to expand...

Which 38 of the 50 sovereign states do you think will vote to reduce their representation?
 
Beowulf said:
Of course. I and everybody else, and you know that every four years:

"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."

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

why are you repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over another dozens of times?
 
Beowulf said:
Which 38 of the 50 sovereign states do you think will vote to reduce their representation?
Click to expand...

asked and answered in the very post you reproduced above yours - as in the one you pretended to be replying to.
 
haymarket said:
why are you repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over another dozens of times?
Click to expand...

Because I keep telling you that:

"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."

And you seem to be disagreeing with this statement from the constitution. Do you disagree with this section of the constitution or not?
 
Beowulf said:
Because I keep telling you that:

"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."

And you seem to be disagreeing with this statement from the constitution. Do you disagree with this section of the constitution or not?
Click to expand...

I am merely informing you how the states have exercised that power over the last 100 to 200 years of presidential elections and how they all exercise it today in current elections. You are the one that disagrees with that explanation and thus keep repeating the same old thing that has already been repeatedly explained. .
 
haymarket said:
asked and answered in the very post you reproduced above yours - as in the one you pretended to be replying to.
Click to expand...

You listed the 38 states you think will vote to reduce their representation in the treaty? I must have missed this. Can you please provide a link?
 
haymarket said:
I am merely informing you how the states have exercised that power over the last 100 to 200 years of presidential elections. You are the one that disagrees with that explanation and thus keep repeating the same old thing that has already been repeatedly explained. .
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all:

"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."

That's what the constitution says, right?
 
Beowulf said:
You listed the 38 states you think will vote to reduce their representation in the treaty? I must have missed this. Can you please provide a link?
Click to expand...

I already explained it if and when it will happen. Read for gods sake. Read.

You easily rank in the bottom five of the most obtuse individuals I have ever encountered on this site.
 
Beowulf said:
I don't disagree at all:

"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."

That's what the constitution says, right?
Click to expand...

Why do you need me to confirm what you yourself can read? If you want validation, get yourself a therapist.

You know damn well what the Constitution says and how the 50 states exercise that passage in the holding of elections for president and in votes of the people. But you act like you just fell off the turnip truck.

And you have been acting like that for a long time now.
 
haymarket said:
I already explained it if and when it will happen. Read for gods sake. Read.

You easily rank in the bottom five of the most obtuse individuals I have ever encountered on this site.
Click to expand...

It will happen when 38 states choose to amend the treaty. I'm just curious which 38 states you think will choose to amend the treaty in a way that reduces their political power.
 
haymarket said:
Why do you need me to confirm what you yourself can read? If you want validation, get yourself a therapist.

You know damn well what the Constitution says and how the 50 states exercise that passage in the holding of elections for president and in votes of the people. But you act like you just fell off the turnip truck.

And you have been acting like that for a long time now.
Click to expand...

Great. So we can both agree that the constitution says:

"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."

So then I'm not sure why you've been arguing all this time if we've agreed all along.
 
Beowulf said:
It will happen when 38 states choose to amend the treaty. I'm just curious which 38 states you think will choose to amend the treaty in a way that reduces their political power.
Click to expand...

Enough to do the job. Which 38 do not matter to me.
 
Beowulf said:
Great. So we can both agree that the constitution says:

"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."

So then I'm not sure why you've been arguing all this time if we've agreed all along.
Click to expand...

Because you keep insisting that the states APPOINT Electors the way they did when Washington ran and that has not been true for well over a century and has been replaced by voters in elections casting ballots for the candidate.
 
Beowulf said:
I doubt 38 states will choose to amend the treaty so as to reduce their political power.
Click to expand...

You confuse me with someone who cares what you may doubt or what you may accept.
 
haymarket said:
Because you keep insisting that the states APPOINT Electors the way they did when Washington ran and that has not been true for well over a century and has been replaced by voters in elections casting ballots for the candidate.
Click to expand...

That's what the constitution says:

"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."
 
haymarket said:
You confuse me with someone who cares what you may doubt or what you may accept.
Click to expand...

Yeah. 38 states will never choose to amend the treaty so as to reduce their political power.
 
Beowulf said:
That's what the constitution says:

"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."
Click to expand...

But yet you cannot name me one single person with the power to appoint Electors in any state and forgo the election by the people.

You are engaging in fictions from a world that no longer exists and has been long gone with the wind and exists only in your mind which distorts words you read on a page.
 
haymarket said:
But yet you cannot name me one single person with the power to appoint Electors in any state and forgo the election by the people.

You are engaging in fictions from a world that no longer exists and has been long gone with the wind and exists only in your mind which distorts words you read on a page.
Click to expand...

Not a single person. "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct".

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."

Every school kid learns this in civics. I'm not sure why, after I've explained it to you so many times, you seem unable to understand.
 
Beowulf said:
Not a single person. "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct".

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."

Every school kid learns this in civics. I'm not sure why, after I've explained it to you so many times, you seem unable to understand.
Click to expand...

And yet you cannot name me a single legislator that APPOINTS Electors independent and apart from a vote by the states citizens when they vote for president.

It seems you are chasing your own tail and have caught it only to find it was a piece of fluff pinned on to your belt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom