• 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!

Electoral College

Should be Electoral College abolished

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 51.4%

  • No

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • Total voters
    35
The electoral college made sense in a era of primitive technology, such as the early US. Modern telecommunications makes the idea obsolete. Honestly, we haven't had a need for it since the advent of the telegraph.
 
Of course we need to get rid of it.. It really makes us undemocratic when electing the executive position.
 
megaprogman said:
The electoral college made sense in a era of primitive technology, such as the early US. Modern telecommunications makes the idea obsolete. Honestly, we haven't had a need for it since the advent of the telegraph.
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:
Of course we need to get rid of it.. It really makes us undemocratic when electing the executive position.
Click to expand...

This is a representative republic, not a democracy. Real democracy does not work (except in the old days on pirate ships). It turns into mob rule, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Communications has zero to do with it.
 
Arbo said:
This is a representative republic, not a democracy. Real democracy does not work (except in the old days on pirate ships). It turns into mob rule, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Communications has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you realize that people would still be elected to represent us in government right and that this discussion is about the methods of those elections, thus your point is moot, right?
 
From a previous Poll of the same.
emdash said:
I voted no. I am too lazy to explain why, when someone has already done so in an older thread:
Coolguy said:
No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
The People already have their representation through Congress.
Click to expand...

Coolguy said:
Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.

Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have to agree with emdash.
 
megaprogman said:
Yeah, you realize that people would still be elected to represent us in government right and that this discussion is about the methods of those elections, thus your point is moot, right?
Click to expand...

Let me add in there state representation... what do you think would happen to this country if you suddenly took away a small piece of the 'equality' among states? Making it so the bigger/more populous states have more say in the direction of the nation than the smaller/less populous states? Do you think you could get 3/4 of the states to approve the constitutional amendment that would be required to get rid of it?

Did you miss the part about mob rule?

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. - Benjamin Franklin in the Federalist Papers (68)
Click to expand...

Think about people in the modern day, and how few have very little knowledge about their own government, or honestly, give a crap about it. Think about how they know more about celebrities than the politicians that represent them. Do you really want a huge portion of the citizens, who are not well informed, to actually directly elect ANYTHING???
 
Arbo said:
This is a representative republic, not a democracy. Real democracy does not work (except in the old days on pirate ships). It turns into mob rule, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Communications has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...

We are a republic that uses representative democracy......
 
Arbo said:
This is a representative republic, not a democracy. Real democracy does not work (except in the old days on pirate ships). It turns into mob rule, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Communications has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...

Republic - Legislative system
Democracy - Source of power

That is like shape and color
 
considering only 2 presidents i know of have won by electoral college and lost by popular vote,those two being kennedy in 1960 who won by .016% of the vote and bush2 in 2000.

the 2000 election was contested heavily,while the 1960 election of nixon vs kennedy,nixon conceded despite the very high odds a recount could have landed him victory.nixon conceded that the country didnt need to go through that turmoil,however he ran again and won,which was probably his plan anyways.

the electoral college was designed because our country has state and federal control,and it was felt that a popular vote undermined the states authority,the electoral vote also recognized rural areas,a chunk of the population that would be ignored under popular vote.
 
when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, democracy is torn to shreds.
 
Thunder said:
when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, democracy is torn to shreds.
Click to expand...
When a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, our form of Government, a Republic of States, is upheld.
 
Arbo said:
Let me add in there state representation... what do you think would happen to this country if you suddenly took away a small piece of the 'equality' among states? Making it so the bigger/more populous states have more say in the direction of the nation than the smaller/less populous states? Do you think you could get 3/4 of the states to approve the constitutional amendment that would be required to get rid of it?

Did you miss the part about mob rule?
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be population period, not populous states, so your analysis is wrong.

Arbo said:
Think about people in the modern day, and how few have very little knowledge about their own government, or honestly, give a crap about it. Think about how they know more about celebrities than the politicians that represent them. Do you really want a huge portion of the citizens, who are not well informed, to actually directly elect ANYTHING???
Click to expand...

Again it would not be mob rule. What I see here is someone complaining that people don't understand government when they don't seem to understand the basics of representation or the interactions between states and the federal government :shrug:

However, you are correct that I don't give a single rat's ass about what the original intent of this country was. I live in this country today with today's problems, which require today's solutions. While we greatly benefited from some of the intellectual ideas that were in vogue of the day to give us a more functional than previous governments, intellectual ideas are just that ideas and ideas can always be improved on. It always amuses me that some people treat the founding ideas as if they were sacred when ALL political ideas should always be judged on their functional benefits and not some sort of mythical and mystical truth (given that truth is ALWAYS subjective)
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Actually, it would be population period, not populous states, so your analysis is wrong.
Click to expand...

So you really don't understand that part of the deal with the electoral collage did indeed have to do with states and representation? Google is your friend.

However, you are correct that I don't give a single rat's ass about what the original intent of this country was.
Click to expand...

If you want to change thing, some guys that were way smarter than you came up with a system that allows change. It's called the Amendment process. Use it or quit complaining.
 
Arbo said:
So you really don't understand that part of the deal with the electoral collage did indeed have to do with states and representation? Google is your friend.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand my comment. If popular voting were enacted, states wouldn't matter, yet your clearly wish to discuss them, so yeah, google is your friend as well.

Arbo said:
If you want to change thing, some guys that were way smarter than you came up with a system that allows change. It's called the Amendment process. Use it or quit complaining.
Click to expand...

:shrug: going to a straight popular vote isn't a bit enough cause for me to actually do anything about, I just think its a good idea from a mathematical and technological perspective, but the practical effect on my life is practically nil.

I also notice you are one of the FF worshippers, so chances are that you are unable to discuss this rationally anyway. Here's a hint, our system of government is not a religion. Assess the system for what it is by its effects, not because some demi-gods from the 1700s thought it up.
 
megaprogman said:
Again, you don't understand my comment. If popular voting were enacted, states wouldn't matter, yet your clearly wish to discuss them, so yeah, google is your friend as well.
Click to expand...

Part of the electoral college is states representation. Do you not get that, or more likely do not care because you don't care about states rights?

:shrug: going to a straight popular vote isn't a bit enough cause for me to actually do anything about,
Click to expand...

Ah, complain, but do nothing. Got it.

I also notice you are one of the FF worshippers, so chances are that you are unable to discuss this rationally anyway. Here's a hint, our system of government is not a religion. Assess the system for what it is by its effects, not because some demi-gods from the 1700s thought it up.
Click to expand...

No worshipping. They just appear to have a better sense of limited government, states rights, and balance of power than you or any other "progressive" that I have ever run across. They based what they did, for the most part, on logic and reason, and thinking things through, rather than emotion and feelings.
 
megaprogman said:
The electoral college made sense in a era of primitive technology, such as the early US. Modern telecommunications makes the idea obsolete. Honestly, we haven't had a need for it since the advent of the telegraph.
Click to expand...

What state do you live in?

Sent from my blasted phone.
 
Arbo said:
Part of the electoral college is states representation. Do you not get that, or more likely do not care because you don't care about states rights?
Click to expand...
Arbo, I believe that he is suggesting that there would be no need for state electors if instead of a federation of republics, the united states were replaced by one single giant unitary state. In that case, there would be no need for state electors, as states would not exists as sovereign political entities.
 
Eliminating the electoral college would be fine...provided that there were balanced budget amendments in place and all federal social programs and nonessential spending was returned to the states. The electoral college balances election representation...where you have country that is dominantly 'red' vs a much smaller number of 'blue' states with high population centers (and much higher debt and social ills) then all states require some form of equal representation in the national election.

Many states have mandated balanced budget amendments and are fiscally responsible. Many others are bankrupt and a train wreck with no end in sight. Beyond the fact they pretty much have demonstrated from their own fiscal irresponsibility they SHOULD be trusted with a greater vote, removing the electoral college puts smaller (and responsible) states at risk of having to carry more of their burden.
 
Arbo said:
Part of the electoral college is states representation. Do you not get that, or more likely do not care because you don't care about states rights?
Click to expand...

The surpremecy of the federal government since the civil war makes your point moot.

Arbo said:
Ah, complain, but do nothing. Got it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't complaining but point out that we have access to a better system. You took it as a complaint because of your reactionary nature.

Arbo said:
No worshipping. They just appear to have a better sense of limited government, states rights, and balance of power than you or any other "progressive" that I have ever run across. They based what they did, for the most part, on logic and reason, and thinking things through, rather than emotion and feelings.
Click to expand...

The simple fact is that I do not share the same priorities as those you worship, so its not a matter of emotion, but logic when it comes to my own personal beliefs of what is best. Its amazing you can't logic your way to this simple fact but instead use boiler plate arguments which shows your intellectual inferiority.
 
Arbo said:
This is a representative republic, not a democracy. Real democracy does not work (except in the old days on pirate ships). It turns into mob rule, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Communications has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yes - we are a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. And abolishing the EC changes nothing about that fact since it is still part of the same representative democracy concept.

Did you miss the part about mob rule?
Click to expand...

Why do extremists on the right refer to the people exercising their vote in a peaceful and orderly manner according to the law as MOB RULE?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Yes - we are a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. And abolishing the EC changes nothing about that fact since it is still part of the same representative democracy concept.
Click to expand...

No, he seems to think we will go directly to mob rule and is resistant to any arguments to the contrary, then accuses OTHERS of being illogical. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom