• 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

OpportunityCost said:
I don't need the civics lesson, I already know that. Let me make this simple for you so you don't get confused, the EC is to represent both states and the people, that's its set up that way, not just the people.
Click to expand...

Well, so you state the obvious which is why so many of us, the majority, think it should be abolished. You have yet to make any intelligent defense of it other then to reference the existing minority based rule based upon land not people.
 
Vadinho said:
Well, so you state the obvious which is why so many of us, the majority, think it should be abolished. You have yet to make any intelligent defense of it other then to reference the existing minority based rule based upon land not people.
Click to expand...

That's the point! Its to protect the smaller states.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That's the point! Its to protect the smaller states.
Click to expand...

From who? From the people of the United States of America? Thats what the courts do. What else do you have other then trying to tell us that a guy in Wyoming is more important to the nation then a guy in California? In fact, if that guy moved to California, his vote would be worthless.
 
haymarket said:
They were thinking as men who were products of the 1700's in a nation that was primarily rural and agricultural and in which the education level was rather low. They were thinking as men who were not yet familiar with the concept of a government of the people, by the people and of the people. And they were thinking as men who were unfamiliar with the concept of one person and one vote that now has been enshrined in our system.

We got rid of the powdered wigs they wore, the chamber pots they used, the ill fitting shoes they wore, the many health hazards of the day - all that is gone with the wind as society moved on. We need to do the same with the EC. Throw it out with the other relics of a by gone age.
Click to expand...

The 2016 electoral map shows exactly why the EC is still very much relevant and needed today.

Thankfully the Constitution requires 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. You will never see the States choose to abdicate their power to another State to their own peril.
 
Vadinho said:
From who? From the people of the United States of America? Thats what the courts do. What else do you have other then trying to tell us that a guy in Wyoming is more important to the nation then a guy in California? In fact, if that guy moved to California, his vote would be worthless.
Click to expand...

Why are the people of California so important that the people of Wyoming should listen to their crazy ideas?
 
Vadinho said:
My lord, you just won't give up will you? Let me make it simple for you so you don't get confused. The majority of the people, whether that majority is left or right, deserve to have their votes dominate over the minority of people who voted for the other person in the Presidential Election. The states are represented by the Senate, the people by the House and the law by the courts. Is that clear enough for you or should we do another round?
Click to expand...

No. The majority do not deserve to have their votes dominate the minority. Besides a simple mathematical argument, I’d like to hear why one thinks the majority deserve this.
 
Aberration said:
No. The majority do not deserve to have their votes dominate the minority. Besides a simple mathematical argument, I’d like to hear why one thinks the majority deserve this.
Click to expand...

Because they are the majority?

The way it plays out the minority has "dominated" the majority twice recently.

It's just the president. He doesn't dominate. There's two other branches to make sure he/she doesn't.

All of the pro-EC rhetoric comes from the right because they can't win if they don't rig the game.
 
Vadinho said:
From who? From the people of the United States of America? Thats what the courts do. What else do you have other then trying to tell us that a guy in Wyoming is more important to the nation then a guy in California? In fact, if that guy moved to California, his vote would be worthless.
Click to expand...

To prevent larger population states from dominating all aspects of politics in the US. Its the reason why the Senate exists and its the reason why the Electoral College is set up the way it is: as a compromise between large and small states. You think its a bug, its not, its a feature.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Calling people evil every chance you get isn't going to change behavior, the opposite tends to be true.
Click to expand...

Calling out evil whenever you see it is a moral obligation.
 
What if...? said:
Because they are the majority?

The way it plays out the minority has "dominated" the majority twice recently.

It's just the president. He doesn't dominate. There's two other branches to make sure he/she doesn't.

All of the pro-EC rhetoric comes from the right because they can't win if they don't rig the game.
Click to expand...

Because they are a majority is just a simple mathematical argument and lacks logic.

Just because you don’t like the rules does not mean the game is rigged.
 
Aberration said:
The 2016 electoral map shows exactly why the EC is still very much relevant and needed today.

Thankfully the Constitution requires 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. You will never see the States choose to abdicate their power to another State to their own peril.
Click to expand...

States do not vote. People vote. And Republicans who defend the EC because they believe they have a built in advantage will change their position when it bites them in the ass and they are on the losing end of the deal the way the Democrats have been five different times.
 
Aberration said:
No. The majority do not deserve to have their votes dominate the minority. Besides a simple mathematical argument, I’d like to hear why one thinks the majority deserve this.
Click to expand...

So the consensus is in from the true patriots, those that believe only they should have the power to select a POTUS and the rest of us should just stay home. Got it.
 
This is informative reading

The road to abolish the Electoral College may just run through Texas (Opinion) - CNN

this is particularly interesting for those who falsely maintain that it forces candidates to consider ALL the states

For instance, after the two major party conventions concluded, 94% of all public campaigning took place in 12 states, and 70% took place in just six states. No major party candidate held a rally, gave a speech or held a public event in any state with only three electoral votes.
The same is true for many of the most highly populated states. FairVote's analysis found that Donald Trump and Mike Pence failed to campaign in more than half of the 50 states, while Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine failed to campaign in nearly three-quarters of the states in the union.
Click to expand...

And that is under the current EC system.
 
haymarket said:
States do not vote. People vote. And Republicans who defend the EC because they believe they have a built in advantage will change their position when it bites them in the ass and they are on the losing end of the deal the way the Democrats have been five different times.
Click to expand...

There are numerous argument iterated repeatedly here that violate Brandolini's law. For example, "the EC is designed to protect the minority from the majority". That is just untrue. Never has been, isn't now, never will be. It needs to stop being said (but I'm sure it won't be). The EC was supposed to represent the will of the majority.

The United States is a DEMOCRACY - "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - or at least it is supposed to be. The people vote to elect their leaders. It is a "representative democracy", in that the powers of the government are delegated to elected leaders. That is the definition of a "Republic" as it was used by the framers, so again, cut the crap.

If something is 10% true and 90% false, is it still true? The balance of power between the States was a small consideration in the creation of the EC. Virginia was the main proponent and it was the largest voting State. Why do you think so many early Presidents were from Virginia? The EC did not create or obviate the problem.

The Electoral College was a compromise between legislative election of the President and popular vote. That is all there is to it. At the time of its adoption, popular election was not practical, and potentially physically impossible. It took days, sometimes weeks, to travel the country and was an arduous process. "local" elections were the only practical method. Yes, various members of the Constitutional Convention expressed various concerns about the implications of one voting method or another, but the reality is that the EC was a cobbled-together compromise to get the Constitution off the ground. It is not sacrosanct, and wasn't then. It was an effort to keep the whole thing from failing at the start. It long ago outlived its usefulness, and didn't even survive intact after the election of George Washington.

The EC was intended to allow the people to have a say in who was the President, not the States. That is why they vote for Electors, not the legislatures. Moreover it was intended to allow the majority have the say in who was President.

In short, most of the arguments put forth in favor of the EC are just BS to cover for something else. What those something elses might be, I will not speculate upon here, but we kinda know what they are.
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
Ah, but calling people evil that aren't isn't a virtue, its the typical SJW vice of virtue signaling.
Click to expand...

I don't think, my friend, you know what virtue is, do you?
 
NWRatCon said:
There are numerous argument iterated repeatedly here that violate Brandolini's law. For example, "the EC is designed to protect the minority from the majority". That is just untrue. Never has been, isn't now, never will be. It needs to stop being said (but I'm sure it won't be). The EC was supposed to represent the will of the majority.

The United States is a DEMOCRACY - "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - or at least it is supposed to be. The people vote to elect their leaders. It is a "representative democracy", in that the powers of the government are delegated to elected leaders. That is the definition of a "Republic" as it was used by the framers, so again, cut the crap.

If something is 10% true and 90% false, is it still true? The balance of power between the States was a small consideration in the creation of the EC. Virginia was the main proponent and it was the largest voting State. Why do you think so many early Presidents were from Virginia? The EC did not create or obviate the problem.

The Electoral College was a compromise between legislative election of the President and popular vote. That is all there is to it. At the time of its adoption, popular election was not practical, and potentially physically impossible. It took days, sometimes weeks, to travel the country and was an arduous process. "local" elections were the only practical method. Yes, various members of the Constitutional Convention expressed various concerns about the implications of one voting method or another, but the reality is that the EC was a cobbled-together compromise to get the Constitution off the ground. It is not sacrosanct, and wasn't then. It was an effort to keep the whole thing from failing at the start. It long ago outlived its usefulness, and didn't even survive intact after the election of George Washington.

The EC was intended to allow the people to have a say in who was the President, not the States. That is why they vote for Electors, not the legislatures. Moreover it was intended to allow the majority have the say in who was President.

In short, most of the arguments put forth in favor of the EC are just BS to cover for something else. What those something elses might be, I will not speculate upon here, but we kinda know what they are.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. The idea that smaller state voters need some sort of mathematical affirmative action program is disgusting and a violation of one person and one vote.

Hamilton in Federalist 68 told us the purpose was CHEIFLY to protect the USA from a foreign power putting a creature of their own in our highest office and the these special electors would protect us from that. They certainly failed to look into that charge in the most recent election for president.
 
Aberration said:
Why are the people of California so important that the people of Wyoming should listen to their crazy ideas?
Click to expand...

If the people of California are in step with the majority of Americans and vote together, why shouldn't the people of California be considered equally with the rest of their voting compatriots? What is it about California that makes then any different then any other voter? For that matter, why should the conservatives in California have no say at all despite numbering in the millions? Shouldn't their votes count too?
 
NWRatCon said:
I don't think, my friend, you know what virtue is, do you?
Click to expand...

You want a fishing pole?

Its not a virtue to make unproven accusations so you can feel better about yourself and get adulation from peers.
 
Vadinho said:
If the people of California are in step with the majority of Americans and vote together, why shouldn't the people of California be considered equally with the rest of their voting compatriots? What is it about California that makes then any different then any other voter? For that matter, why should the conservatives in California have no say at all despite numbering in the millions? Shouldn't their votes count too?
Click to expand...

Their votes will matter even less under a popular vote Presidential system.
 
haymarket said:
Excellent post. The idea that smaller state voters need some sort of mathematical affirmative action program is disgusting and a violation of one person and one vote.

Hamilton in Federalist 68 told us the purpose was CHEIFLY to protect the USA from a foreign power putting a creature of their own in our highest office and the these special electors would protect us from that. They certainly failed to look into that charge in the most recent election for president.
Click to expand...

And out come the butthurt sour grapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom