• 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!

Should the electoral college be replaced with direct elections?

Solace

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In other words, should human beings have a say in who becomes president, instead of the electoral college?
 
The electoral college is made up of human beings. This is an argument over which group of human beings should be allowed to choose the President.

Personally, I'm tempted to say that the electorate is already far too broad.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The electoral college is made up of human beings. This is an argument over which group of human beings should be allowed to choose the President.

Personally, I'm tempted to say that the electorate is already far too broad.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well I favor two types of reforms. The Congressional District Method of the Electoral College, and the Wyoming Rule for apportioning seats of the House of Representatives.

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wyoming Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I vote for direct election of the President by the people. Get rid of the Electoral College. Because of it we had George W. Bush as President. I cannot think of a better argument than that.
 
samsmart said:
Oh. Well I favor two types of reforms. The Congressional District Method of the Electoral College, and the Wyoming Rule for apportioning seats of the House of Representatives.

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wyoming Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I would support the Wyoming Rule, as it would reduce the disparity between overrepresented rural states and disenfranchised urban states.

I'm not a big fan of the "congressional district rule." At least with the standard electoral college, it isn't subject to any gerrymandering; the state borders are what they are. If the congressional district rule was in place, the outcome of presidential elections could be dramatically affected by how the districts were drawn rather than by how the people actually voted. I would, however, support dividing electoral votes proportionally (i.e. if the Democrat wins 40% of the popular vote in Texas, he wins 40% of the electoral votes in Texas) or something like that.

But ideally, I'd prefer to just scrap the electoral college entirely and use the popular vote.
 
Last edited:
The Electoral College serves a useful purpose in avoiding national political chaos in close elections; no national recounts, just state level recounts, which is bad enough. Can you imagine the nightmare of a nationwide recount?

The Electoral College votes once every four years, and, albeit, it is an important vote, it is for the most part grounded firmly in the wishes of the peoples of the individual states as implemented by their legislatures just as the U.S. Constitution intended from the start.

If I was ridding the American political system of one onerous institution, it would be the U.S. Senate which is an affront to our democratic process and takes many, many votes on every aspect of the American political scene. It's the real stinker in our system IMO.
 
Chappy said:
The Electoral College serves a useful purpose in avoiding national political chaos in close elections; no national recounts, just state level recounts, which is bad enough. Can you imagine the nightmare of a nationwide recount?
Click to expand...

But there is no way a nationwide recount would ever be necessary. Even the closest presidential elections are separated by a measurable margin of the popular vote (JFK beat Nixon by 100,000 votes, and Gore beat Bush by 500,000). The probability of a nationwide election going down to the wire is TINY...even if you assume that individuals are exactly 50% likely to vote for the Democrat and 50% for the Republican. In any case, it wouldn't be that much worse than a state recount, it would just be 50 simultaneous state recounts. And the odds of it ever being necessary are far less than 1/50 of the odds of a state recount.

Chappy said:
The Electoral College votes once every four years, and, albeit, it is an important vote, it is for the most part grounded firmly in the wishes of the peoples of the individual states as implemented by their legislatures just as the U.S. Constitution intended from the start.
Click to expand...

Yes but the people who wrote the US Constitution lived in a far different, far smaller, and far more balkanized country than we do today. The president is the leader of the entire country, and should be elected by the people of the entire country, rather than by the people of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
The Electoral College serves a useful purpose in avoiding national political chaos in close elections; no national recounts, just state level recounts, which is bad enough. Can you imagine the nightmare of a nationwide recount?

The Electoral College votes once every four years, and, albeit, it is an important vote, it is for the most part grounded firmly in the wishes of the peoples of the individual states as implemented by their legislatures just as the U.S. Constitution intended from the start.

If I was ridding the American political system of one onerous institution, it would be the U.S. Senate which is an affront to our democratic process and takes many, many votes on every aspect of the American political scene. It's the real stinker in our system IMO.
Click to expand...

Oh, be fair. It's not the U.S. Senate which is the affront to our democratic process, but rather the filibuster.

I rather like our bicameral legislature. However, another reform to it that I would propose is Instant Run-off Voting. That way, third parties could get elected, and our legislature would be more representative of the political thought of the people.
 
samsmart said:
Oh, be fair. It's not the U.S. Senate which is the affront to our democratic process, but rather the filibuster. …
Click to expand...

No, sorry, even if the rules of the Senate were fixed, e.g., the filibuster; the foundation of the institution itself, two senators per state, is an affront to representative democracy.

Excerpted from “How America Can Rise Again” By JAMES FALLOWS, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]hen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
… The president is the leader of the entire country, and should be elected by the people of the entire country, rather than by the people of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

The United States of America is a union of states not people. The president was then and is now elected by the representatives of the states. Your approach is a-historical. Now, perhaps, it's time for another constitution, but, that's a different topic.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
No, sorry, even if the rules of the Senate were fixed, e.g., the filibuster; the foundation of the institution itself, two senators per state, is an affront to representative democracy.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Rather, the Senate is a smaller, more deliberative body for the writing of laws. I like that Senators are elected every 6 years rather than every 2 years. I like that states as a whole get representation in a separate body. I like that the Senate is there to stop and say, "Whoa, hold on, let's think about this."

After all, I don't see why California, Texas, Florida, and New York should ride roughshod over Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, and Montana. What's more, I don't see why the needs of Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, and Montana on a national level should be ignored to favor the needs of California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

And after purusing that article, most of the things mentioned could be addressed through separate reforms rather than abolition of the U.S. Senate.
 
Chappy said:
The United States of America is a union of states not people. The president was then and is now elected by the representatives of the states. Your approach is a-historical. Now, perhaps, it's time for another constitution, but, that's a different topic.
Click to expand...

As I said, that may have been the case in 1789, but it's certainly no longer the case. Today, the United States is a union of people that happens to be subdivided into states for the convenience of addressing local issues. We are one nation. Most people identify as Americans, not as Ohioans or Californians or DC residents (I don't even know what we DC residents are called, which should indicate how little I associate with the District as opposed to the United States).

The president should be elected by the people. ALL the people, not those who happen to live in swing states or those who are overrepresented because they happen to live in sparsely populated areas.
 
Kandahar said:
As I said, that may have been the case in 1789, but it's certainly no longer the case. Today, the United States is a union of people that happens to be subdivided into states for the convenience of addressing local issues. We are one nation. Most people identify as Americans, not as Ohioans or Californians or DC residents (I don't even know what we DC residents are called, which should indicate how little I associate with the District as opposed to the United States).

The president should be elected by the people. ALL the people, not those who happen to live in swing states or those who are overrepresented because they happen to live in sparsely populated areas.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, if we instituted Instant Run-off Voting to allow third parties to get elected, there would be less of a chance at having "swing states" while not having to abolition the Electoral College.
 
samsmart said:
After all, I don't see why California, Texas, Florida, and New York should ride roughshod over Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, and Montana. What's more, I don't see why the needs of Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, and Montana on a national level should be ignored to favor the needs of California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
Click to expand...

Well, because there are more people in California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

Imagine if there is a mayoral election in a little town of 200 people. 180 of them live in a large apartment complex, and the other 20 live in a smaller apartment complex down the street. Would it make any sense for those who live in the smaller apartment complex to complain that their interests aren't being accurately represented by the election? Of course not, they each had the same amount of influence as everyone else.
 
samsmart said:
Well, to be fair, if we instituted Instant Run-off Voting to allow third parties to get elected, there would be less of a chance at having "swing states" while not having to abolition the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

Why? Even with instant run-off voting, some states are going to be more conservative relative to the national average, some states are going to be more liberal relative to the national average, and some states are going to be bellwethers. You're still going to have a handful of states picking the president, regardless of which two political parties participate in the runoff.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I vote for direct election of the President by the people. Get rid of the Electoral College. Because of it we had George W. Bush as President. I cannot think of a better argument than that.
Click to expand...

SHOKER ALERT: I agree with this statement.

GWB, in his first election, did not have the majority of the vote, just the majority of the electoral college and I don't like that idea.

However, there is a very good argument to be made that the electoral college forces candidates to concentrate their campaigns in more rural areas. Of course, the same reasoning could be used to say that the electoral college forces candidates out of certain areas as well.

I think we need to hybrid the system. We maintain the electoral college but we split the votes like Nebraska. This way Republicans don't lose the millions of votes they get in California and Democrats don't lose the four or five votes they get in Texas.

On top of that, one candidate should reach 50% of the popular vote. Most countries that do this have multiple elections. But we could do it with an all computer voting system that allows you to rank your picks 1 to 10, one being your favorite 10 being your least favorite, and have the computer tally the votes. When no one reaches 50%, drop the bottom candidate and re-tally. Repeat until someone reaches 50%. It is complicated, but at least we'd have a consensus on who should run the country. Plus, we might be able to give 3rd party candidates a boost. You could vote for a Ralph Nader type knowing that when he is dropped from the ballot, your vote will still go towards your compromise/establishment candidate.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, because there are more people in California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

Imagine if there is a mayoral election in a little town of 200 people. 180 of them live in a large apartment complex, and the other 20 live in a smaller apartment complex down the street. Would it make any sense for those who live in the smaller apartment complex to complain that their interests aren't being accurately represented by the election? Of course not, they each had the same amount of influence as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on whether or not the mayor actually is representing their interests or if they are ignoring them in favor of the apartment complex with 180 people instead knowing that the complex with 20 people won't affect his election any.
 
But that's partially my point. The electoral college had at least SOME merit back in the day when the cultures, interests, and politics of the US states were substantially different. But that's really not the case anymore. Most people identify more with their country than their state. And most people - of all states and political ideologies - want the US government pursuing goals that are good for the entire nation, rather than benefiting their state at the expense of all others.

Are the small states really in danger of being penalized if we have more equitable representation? I think that's premised on the assumption that small states and large states have fundamentally different interests, which does not seem to be the case any longer.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
But that's partially my point. The electoral college had at least SOME merit back in the day when the cultures, interests, and politics of the US states were substantially different. But that's really not the case anymore. Most people identify more with their country than their state. And most people - of all states and political ideologies - want the US government pursuing goals that are good for the entire nation, rather than benefiting their state at the expense of all others.
Click to expand...

Go hang out in Seattle, Washington, for a week. Then go hang out in St. Louis, Missouri, for a week. Then go hang out in New York City, New York, for a week. Then go hang out in Helena, Montana, for a week. Then go hang out in Orlando, Florida, for a week. Then go hang out in Providence, Rhode Island, for a week.

Then tell me that the states don't have individual cultures anymore.

Every American will tell you that they look out for the best of our nation as a whole. Where we all disagree, however, is what is best for our nation. And while that is true on a national level, it is also true on a more local level as well. So I still don't see why California, Texas, Florida, and New York should ride roughshod over the smaller states, especially when those larger states can do so at their benefit but at the expense of smaller states.

Hence, the Senate.
 
samsmart said:
Go hang out in Seattle, Washington, for a week. Then go hang out in St. Louis, Missouri, for a week. Then go hang out in New York City, New York, for a week. Then go hang out in Helena, Montana, for a week. Then go hang out in Orlando, Florida, for a week. Then go hang out in Providence, Rhode Island, for a week.

Then tell me that the states don't have individual cultures anymore.
Click to expand...

And then go hang out in Paris, France for a week for some comparison. The difference in culture in the US states is trivial.

samsmart said:
Every American will tell you that they look out for the best of our nation as a whole. Where we all disagree, however, is what is best for our nation.
Click to expand...

Right. So it's not a question of some states oppressing others (since we're all interested in what's best for the nation as a whole), it's just a question of which policies are the best. Therefore there's no reason to favor the interests of some states over others, as small-state voters have no more claim to valid viewpoints on what's best for the nation than large-state voters do.

samsmart said:
And while that is true on a national level, it is also true on a more local level as well. So I still don't see why California, Texas, Florida, and New York should ride roughshod over the smaller states, especially when those larger states can do so at their benefit but at the expense of smaller states.
Click to expand...

If you agree that people identify with their nation and want what's best for the nation (rather than their state), then why is this a concern? Furthermore, how does the electoral college solve the problem? It just changes the dynamic from presidents being accountable to large-state voters, to presidents being accountable to swing-state voters. Why should Ohio, Nevada, and Pennsylvania be allowed to ride roughshod over Wyoming, New York, and South Carolina?
 
Solace said:
In other words, should human beings have a say in who becomes president, instead of the electoral college?
Click to expand...

If popular vote counted Gore would have been president, there would have been no preemptive attacks on foreign countries, no casualties, nothing for active NEOCOM hawks to chew on.

ricksfolly
 
haymarket said:
I vote for direct election of the President by the people. Get rid of the Electoral College. Because of it we had George W. Bush as President. I cannot think of a better argument than that.
Click to expand...


Like most of the things the founders created-its better than making a rash decision because some sore losers were disappointed once.

Actually most of the pundits and polling suggested that Al Gore might win the electoral college-Most predicted Bush was going to win the popular vote
 
ricksfolly said:
If popular vote counted Gore would have been president, there would have been no preemptive attacks on foreign countries, no casualties, nothing for active NEOCOM hawks to chew on.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

so al gore would have done nothing about 9-11? that sounds about right. and if the press had not called florida-and hence the election for al gore and if all the open cases of dem vote fraud had been prosecuted, can you honestly say al gore would have won the popular vote?
 
TurtleDude said:
so al gore would have done nothing about 9-11? that sounds about right. and if the press had not called florida-and hence the election for al gore and if all the open cases of dem vote fraud had been prosecuted, can you honestly say al gore would have won the popular vote?
Click to expand...

gimme a break

first, what Dem voter fraud? Who was prosecuted and convicted of such a thing? He won the popular vote by 1/2 million votes for heavens sakes.
seond, Bush did not do a damn thing about 911. The invasion of Iraq had not a damn thing to do with it.

Does the historical record mean nothing to you compared you to your blind self imposed belief system?

Like most of the things the founders created-its better than making a rash decision because some sore losers were disappointed once.
Click to expand...

ONCE!!!!! You really are ignorant of the historical record.
1824
1876
1888
2000

Once indeed!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom