• 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!

Are Electors still relevant?

And have the radical states of California and New York run the interests of the entire country? No thanks.

One person, one vote. I'm sure that a lot of empty real estate will be sad that it doesn't get to help right wingers win even after a loss anymore, but our hearts will go on.
 
One person, one vote. I'm sure that a lot of empty real estate will be sad that it doesn't get to help right wingers win even after a loss anymore, but our hearts will go on.

The senate violates "one person one vote".
 
This is absolutely correct....if the electoral collage is done away with, a few very large population centers will determine the vote and the rest of the country is screwed...

How so ?

Give me an hypothetical example of what might happen


There are several (democratic) federal states in the world, give an example of the lack of an EC causing the country to be "screwed".
 
Are electors elected by popular vote?

Presidents aren't. That needs to change. Mostly, it just helps right wingers who lost. No thanks.
 
Presidents aren't. That needs to change. Mostly, it just helps right wingers who lost. No thanks.

Why does the president need to be chosen by a popular vote and not by electors chosen by the people?
 
How so ?

Give me an hypothetical example of what might happen


There are several (democratic) federal states in the world, give an example of the lack of an EC causing the country to be "screwed".

That's easy....all of the rest of the country outside of a few large population centers will have no say in elections or the direction the country is going.

Politicians running for office would not even bother campaigning in small states with smaller populations because it would not matter to them getting elected......Rhode Island? Vermont??? Citizens in all the other small and/ or less populous states would have no say at all.

The electoral collage was the way our founding fathers came up with to insure fairness for all areas of our nation and it works pretty well.
 
Why does the president need to be chosen by a popular vote and not by electors chosen by the people?

Because get more votes if you want to win. Easy enough.
 
What does that look like?

I think a common proposal is that you break the votes down by district, since a State's EC votes = #Districts + 2 (the 2 coming from the Senators).

So you look district by district, which ever candidate wins that district gets that district's EC vote. The overall popular vote winner of the state then also gets the +2. It's essentially a way to split the EC vote of a state up by the popular vote of said State.
 
That's easy....all of the rest of the country outside of a few large population centers will have no say in elections or the direction the country is going.

Yes they will - their votes

In a Democracy, the minority get their say, but the majority get their way

You are arguing for mob rule


Politicians running for office would not even bother campaigning in small states with smaller populations...

Like Trump in 2016 ?

You campaign where the people are concentrated because you only have finite resources

The people in low population states still have a vote though


The electoral collage was the way our founding fathers came up with to insure fairness for all areas of our nation and it works pretty well.


So you think it is better for the majority to have "no say" or not get their way ?

When you allow a minority to dictate to the majority, that's when you get mob rule


I asked you:

"Give me an hypothetical example of what might happen

There are several (democratic) federal states in the world, give an example of the lack of an EC causing the country to be "screwed".



You remain silent.
 
Because get more votes if you want to win. Easy enough.

The president doesn't get votes, other than those cast by the electors.
 
That's easy....all of the rest of the country outside of a few large population centers will have no say in elections or the direction the country is going.

Politicians running for office would not even bother campaigning in small states with smaller populations because it would not matter to them getting elected......Rhode Island? Vermont??? Citizens in all the other small and/ or less populous states would have no say at all.

The electoral collage was the way our founding fathers came up with to insure fairness for all areas of our nation and it works pretty well.

I would argue that nobody campaigns in RI, Vermont, or any of the flyovers. The point was to REDUCE the influence of states with the highest populated areas, and create a more balanced election.
 
I would argue that nobody campaigns in RI, Vermont, or any of the flyovers. The point was to REDUCE the influence of states with the highest populated areas, and create a more balanced election.

I would argue that they all do...perhaps not physically but it's the same message


(such that Trump has one now).
 
I think a common proposal is that you break the votes down by district, since a State's EC votes = #Districts + 2 (the 2 coming from the Senators).

So you look district by district, which ever candidate wins that district gets that district's EC vote. The overall popular vote winner of the state then also gets the +2. It's essentially a way to split the EC vote of a state up by the popular vote of said State.

If it won't prevent an incompetent madman from becoming president, then it has outlived its usefulness.
 
The president doesn't get votes, other than those cast by the electors.

I'm arguing that we should fix that. If Republicans want their latest idiot to win, they should get more votes.
 
If it won't prevent an incompetent madman from becoming president, then it has outlived its usefulness.

Yes Trump's ascendancy to the office of president is enough argument to scrap the EC alone.
 
If it won't prevent an incompetent madman from becoming president, then it has outlived its usefulness.

Well it prevented an incompetent madwoman from becoming president. The problem is that the Party just puts up incompetent boobs all the time and folk won't vote 3rd party. And moving to the popular vote doesn't solve that. The problem doesn't like within the EC, the problem lies within the stagnation of the Party. A popular vote does not solve that.
 
What does net present value have to do with this discussion?

And that is why it will into effect, because many bright people like you do not know what it is.
 
Exactly. Many people do not understand this point. It's important. It's how we got everybody to play ball. There's a minimum of electors for every state at 3. 2 Senators + at least one congressional district/congressman.

Now we're talking about REMOVING the safeguards put in place. I am still curious if people feel that electors are still necessary. I am getting the sense they still are.

I think they are more important now than ever. And you touched on the other aspect of our government is that is even more "imbalanced" than the EC. I mean, if the anti-EC people really wanted to complain they would be going after the Senate.
 
One person, one vote. I'm sure that a lot of empty real estate will be sad that it doesn't get to help right wingers win even after a loss anymore, but our hearts will go on.

It's still one vote, one person...for the state, and it's the states who chose the President. They get their one vote to determine who the state will support. Because we are the Unite "States" of America, not just America. So it's not a matter of empty real estate getting votes or anything like that. It's a matter that the interest of the combined states is different than that of two singular states that are very radical an homogenous in their ideology.

If they want far-leftist policies they can do that in their own states.
 
Because get more votes if you want to win. Easy enough.

It's more of a 50 game series than a singular championship game. It doesn't matter if you blow the other team out in a couple of games if you lose the majority of them.
 
Well it prevented an incompetent madwoman from becoming president. The problem is that the Party just puts up incompetent boobs all the time and folk won't vote 3rd party. And moving to the popular vote doesn't solve that. The problem doesn't like within the EC, the problem lies within the stagnation of the Party. A popular vote does not solve that.

Clinton was a terrible candidate. however, there is no comparison when it comes to competency. the EC should have prevented him from becoming president, as that is one of its roles. if it will not fulfill its role, then it's time to for it to go.
 
Back
Top Bottom