• 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!

Abolish the popular vote !

Should people vote for president?

  • People don't have to vote for president, their state legislature chooses the EC slate

  • There should be no popular vote since the state legislature chooses the EC slate

  • Yes people should vote and the legislature should NOT be able to reject the results

  • Yes people should vote for president but the legislature should be able to reject the popular vote

  • other, please post to explain


Results are only viewable after voting.
And, of course, the American people ARE able to vote. Admittedly some of them can vote at a location that is mere blocks away from their residence and without waiting in line for six or seven hours for the chance to actually get into the polling location, while others can't - but that doesn't mean that the are NOT "able to vote".

And, of course, the legislatures are NOT able to reject anyone's vote. Admittedly the legislature can set ID standards so that the people who aren't likely to vote "The Right Way" are less likely to actually be able to vote and the legislature can pass laws that permit it to make decisions REGARDLESS of the way that the people vote after the people's votes have been accepted and counted - but that doesn't mean that they are "rejecting" any one person's vote.
Absolutely agree, all good points. I was using the wording in the OP.
 
And y’all want the minority to rule.
Now that is simply not true. They'd be more than happy if the majority ruled PROVIDED that they were in the majority. It's only when they are in the minority that they want the minority to rule.
 
I am not attacking any member, and I won’t name them. But I was amazed by what they wrote.

I can paraphrase what the member posted about presidential electoral politics,

People in the US erroneously believe that they, and not the State legislatures, elect the President.

….the only way to rectify this problem is by eliminating the popular vote for President completely.


The member was also saying that we might simply not vote for president at all. This member is correct that the state legislature is the body that determines the state EC slate. He is claiming that we don’t need people to actually go to polls, punch a ballot and vote for president. Please let us know if you agree or not.

If you are thinking that people can vote and it amounts to a straw poll, nonbinding survey, that's the first choice. If you think people are mistaken about how presidential votes are counted and they need to know, that's the second choice.
If you are thinking that The state legislature should be able to decide, but that they will never choose to override the popular vote, that's not the question here since that's a different opinionated hypothetical.
Thanks, I am just wondering if this has legs among DP members.

People in each state are free to elect state representatives who will implement laws of their chosing dictating how their state's slate of electors is assigned.

Sounds pretty democratic to me.
 
Hypothetical situation:

I am a registered Republican living in California. I consistently vote for GOP presidential candidates every four years, and every four years the electors of my state cast California's 55 EC votes for the Democratic candidate.

Did my vote have any impact on the election (i.e. as much as any other individual vote)?
 
I am not attacking any member, and I won’t name them. But I was amazed by what they wrote.

I can paraphrase what the member posted about presidential electoral politics,

People in the US erroneously believe that they, and not the State legislatures, elect the President.

….the only way to rectify this problem is by eliminating the popular vote for President completely.


The member was also saying that we might simply not vote for president at all. This member is correct that the state legislature is the body that determines the state EC slate. He is claiming that we don’t need people to actually go to polls, punch a ballot and vote for president. Please let us know if you agree or not.

If you are thinking that people can vote and it amounts to a straw poll, nonbinding survey, that's the first choice. If you think people are mistaken about how presidential votes are counted and they need to know, that's the second choice.
If you are thinking that The state legislature should be able to decide, but that they will never choose to override the popular vote, that's not the question here since that's a different opinionated hypothetical.
Thanks, I am just wondering if this has legs among DP members.
We all now the electoral college needed to be abolished over 100 years ago.

It was only set up because we did not have communication means.
 
Now that is simply not true. They'd be more than happy if the majority ruled PROVIDED that they were in the majority. It's only when they are in the minority that they want the minority to rule.
I stand corrected.
 
And, of course, the American people ARE able to vote. Admittedly some of them can vote at a location that is mere blocks away from their residence and without waiting in line for six or seven hours for the chance to actually get into the polling location, while others can't - but that doesn't mean that the are NOT "able to vote".

And, of course, the legislatures are NOT able to reject anyone's vote. Admittedly the legislature can set ID standards so that the people who aren't likely to vote "The Right Way" are less likely to actually be able to vote and the legislature can pass laws that permit it to make decisions REGARDLESS of the way that the people vote after the people's votes have been accepted and counted - but that doesn't mean that they are "rejecting" any one person's vote.

Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.” We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States. . .” When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.
 
Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.” We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States. . .” When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.
And that, of course, is just how the Founding Fathers wanted it to be. The Founding Fathers wrote a constitution that ensured (as it was then applied) that ONLY "The Right People" (read as "The Founding Fathers and those of their circle") would have any say in choosing the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Senate.

PS - One ought not instruct one's parent's direct maternal ancestor in the art of extracting the liquid contents of the spheroidal bodies produced by avians through the application of buccally produced negative pressure.
 
People in each state are free to elect state representatives who will implement laws of their chosing dictating how their state's slate of electors is assigned.

Sounds pretty democratic to me.

Sure, sounds democratic to me too until I remember that the EC gave the election to the candidate with fewer votes twice in our recent history. But what's worse is that republican state legislatures are asserting that they may decide to change the voters choices when they consider those votes to be wrong. Many of us want our votes to be counted. If we all must accept the president and their policies, we should be allowed to vote for the person.
 
Sure, sounds democratic to me too until I remember that the EC gave the election to the candidate with fewer votes twice in our recent history.

So what? That's merely a product of the system - candidates run their campaigns in the system we have. If the system were different, they'd run their campaigns differently.

Is that inherently worse than a system in which 49% of the population potentially has absolutely no say in how they will live their lives?

The solution is not to whine about how the president is elected, but rather to take power away from the president and return it to the states.
 
So what? That's merely a product of the system - candidates run their campaigns in the system we have. If the system were different, they'd run their campaigns differently.

Is that inherently worse than a system in which 49% of the population potentially has absolutely no say in how they will live their lives?

The solution is not to whine about how the president is elected, but rather to take power away from the president and return it to the states.

The preservation of the EC is based on the fear ( and whining) about not being able to get a republican candidate in the white house again. it's also really about not trusting citizens to vote for the president. So until you address those two issues , I'm ignoring your 'product of the system' and your ' solution' as a lousy excuse.
 
Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.
And I would suggest you look at the history of the makeup of the EC. What we have is NOT what was originally designed.
 
The preservation of the EC is based on the fear ( and whining) about not being able to get a republican candidate in the white house again. it's also really about not trusting citizens to vote for the president. So until you address those two issues , I'm ignoring your 'product of the system' and your ' solution' as a lousy excuse.

It's based on the fact that it is enshrined in our constitution, and that this country is not one big blob but rather a federation of what were supposed to be largely independent states.

The idea that Republicans wouldn't be able to get elected if we switched to a popular vote system is pure bollocks.
 
I think it is time to eliminate the Electoral College Process and allow for a direct vote of the people to determine who is to be President.
 
I think we should be doing it my districts like Maine and Nebraska. Can you imagine what the elections would be like
 
We all now the electoral college needed to be abolished over 100 years ago.

It was only set up because we did not have communication means.
first of all "we" is bullshit. what we need to do is tell those who whine about the EC-mainly because it hasn't worked out for the democrats in a couple of elections, to go ahead and try to amend the constitution, rather than pissing and moaning about the institution. I'd prefer if the 17th amendment had never been passed by the scumbag progressives who screwed up lots of things
 
I think it is time to eliminate the Electoral College Process and allow for a direct vote of the people to determine who is to be President.
of course you do, you want immigrant heavy states to control the rest of the country. but go ahead, see if you can get states like Wyoming, Idaho etc to support that idiocy
 
It's based on the fact that it is enshrined in our constitution, and that this country is not one big blob but rather a federation of what were supposed to be largely independent states.

The idea that Republicans wouldn't be able to get elected if we switched to a popular vote system is pure bollocks.
Bollocks you say? You mean how the republican candidate for president has only won the popular vote twice since 1988? That's two out of the last nine elections. Without the EC , neither Bush or trump would have been president.

Don't trust the voters? Worries about the white house? Let's cut out the lame excuses
 
So what? That's merely a product of the system - candidates run their campaigns in the system we have. If the system were different, they'd run their campaigns differently.

Is that inherently worse than a system in which 49% of the population potentially has absolutely no say in how they will live their lives?

The solution is not to whine about how the president is elected, but rather to take power away from the president and return it to the states.
the left hates state power almost as much as they hate a constitutional republic's obstacles to mob rule
 
Bollocks you say? You mean how the republican candidate for president has only won the popular vote twice since 1988? That's two out of the last nine elections. Without the EC , neither Bush or trump would have been president.

Don't trust the voters? Worries about the white house? Let's cut out the lame excuses

You seem to be incapable of grasping the point that political candidates campaign to win the election in which they're participating, not some imaginary election that isn't happening.
 
Hypothetical situation:

I am a registered Republican living in California. I consistently vote for GOP presidential candidates every four years, and every four years the electors of my state cast California's 55 EC votes for the Democratic candidate.

Did my vote have any impact on the election (i.e. as much as any other individual vote)?
No, your vote for the Republican candidate is diluted because you reside and vote in a Democrat-majority state. Because of the "neighborhood" you live in, your Presidential vote has zero value, instead of equal value to your neighbor.
 
You seem to be incapable of grasping the point that political candidates campaign to win the election in which they're participating, not some imaginary election that isn't happening.

I already know what the law says now, and I'm saying it should not be this way. State legislatures should not change the presidential vote of their state.

I noticed you didn't address whether or not you trust people to vote for president. Voters don't know enough to vote for president?
 
You seem to be incapable of grasping the point that political candidates campaign to win the election in which they're participating, not some imaginary election that isn't happening.
He understands that. He's not blaming the candidates for candidating according to the election rules. He, and I, are complaining about the inequitable election system, designed and created by a small group of founders who had substantially different priorities then modern people, and who didn't know what electricity was. Or a car. Or Nevada. Or COVID.
 
first of all "we" is bullshit. what we need to do is tell those who whine about the EC-mainly because it hasn't worked out for the democrats in a couple of elections, to go ahead and try to amend the constitution, rather than pissing and moaning about the institution. I'd prefer if the 17th amendment had never been passed by the scumbag progressives who screwed up lots of things

I noticed your phrase, " it hasn't worked out for the democrats in a couple of elections, "

You mean when the republican won the election with fewer votes, ? Twice in the last 20 years?
 
the left hates state power almost as much as they hate a constitutional republic's obstacles to mob rule

Mob rule? You mean like J6 ?
 
Back
Top Bottom