• 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!

I say we give black people two votes

Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.

It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.

Do you understand the fact that WITHOUT the electorial college, a half dozen coastal states could dictate law for the whole country?
 
I can think of some Republics that aren't also democracies. The People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Arab Republic of Egypt..... you know what, these Republics kinda suck.

Correct, because not mutually exclusive does not imply that one is a subset of the other. ;)
 
Do you understand the fact that WITHOUT the electorial college, a half dozen coastal states could dictate law for the whole country?

As opposed to Ohio and Florida dictating things now?
 
55-3 and you think 3 if bigger than 55. What part of the union of the several states are you willing to breakup and dissolve?

It isn't even that it is worse than that. They are comparing apples to oranges.

Total electoral votes = Number of Reps + Senate.

So the number of reps a state gets is a very complicated math process.
and each state gets 1 rep since it is impossible to have .5 of a person.

there are 437 total seats and each state automatically gets 1.

so the other 387 seats are divided out according to population size and how this math formula works.

Next is the Senate.
The senate doesn't represent the population of the states. It is the check and balance to the population of the states in the house of reps.
were CA has like 53 reps and WY only has 1. CA could crush anything WY wanted to do by a huge margin.

The senate doesn't represent people. It represents the state itself. All states are equal in power. Therefore all states get 2 senators.
SO while the 53 reps in CA in the house can pass a bill saying that WY is now the new trash dump for CA the senators can say not so fast you can't do that.

this is where these people either are confused or simply ignorant in how our government works and is operated.
 
This is a Republic, it always has been. Democracy is mob rule, which is what the French revolution was. This is what the EC is for, to prevent another French Revolution. But, as always, those who learn from history are doomed to stand by while stupid people repeat history.

Athenian democracy is mob rule. No country has tried direct democracy in 2500 years.
If you're so convinced that this is not a democracy, then you don't get to vote, because the sanctity of voting is the cornerstone of our democratic values, which is why voting is set down as part of the Constitution in the first place.

No one advocates for direct democracy so enough with the knee jerk binary dogma.
It's a gross misrepresentation of what "democracy" means in the modern era.

And it's intentional.
 
As opposed to Ohio and Florida dictating things now?

they don't. we hold elections just like every other state.
People in all states vote for who they want as president.
As we saw last election any state can go either way.
 
Athenian democracy is mob rule. No country has tried direct democracy in 2500 years.
If you're so convinced that this is not a democracy, then you don't get to vote, because the sanctity of voting is the cornerstone of our democratic values, which is why voting is set down as part of the Constitution in the first place.

No one advocates for direct democracy so enough with the knee jerk binary dogma.
It's a gross misrepresentation of what "democracy" means in the modern era.

And it's intentional.

actually that is exactly what leftist are pushing for is a pure mob rule democracy.
It is the only way they can silence their opposition.

a true democracy is the first wave to an authoritarian and dictatorship government.
it is the reason that our country was setup to not use a true democracy which the founding fathers saw
as corrupt and evil.
 
they don't. we hold elections just like every other state.
People in all states vote for who they want as president.
As we saw last election any state can go either way.

Which would be even more true if the EC were eliminated.
 
Last edited:
Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.

It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.

The electoral college helps mitigate the effects of ballot fraud. Two or three blue states could turn in 100% Biden ballots, but could not swing the national election due to the EC.

You are just going to have to live with it.
 
not really.

Eliminate the EC and then NY can CA dictate who is president.

Because they are ideological monoliths? There are no Republicans or third party voters in either state?
 
Athenian democracy is mob rule. No country has tried direct democracy in 2500 years.
If you're so convinced that this is not a democracy, then you don't get to vote, because the sanctity of voting is the cornerstone of our democratic values, which is why voting is set down as part of the Constitution in the first place.

No one advocates for direct democracy so enough with the knee jerk binary dogma.
It's a gross misrepresentation of what "democracy" means in the modern era.

And it's intentional.

Sweden is as close to being a direct democracy as you'll find, but that's not what I was talking about, I was not talking about Athenian democracy, either.
 
If you really want to fix the problems with the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment, then over Congress overturn the 1929 arbitrary cap on the size of the House of Representatives. When that cap was instituted, the intent was to have one Rep per 30,000 citizens in a state. So fix that.

California will go from 53 Representatives (and 55 EC votes) to 1,317 Representatives (and 1,319 EC Votes).

Over all the House will increase in size from 435 to 10,941.
 
The OP points to a problem common to republics. It is impossible to give each citizen equal say in the federal government if each state is to have an equal say unless each state has an exactly equal number of citizens. It would require that state boundaries be re-drawn as often as the minimum term in the federal government for an elected representative -- 2 years in the US -- just as state congressional district boundaries are re-drawn every 10 years or so.*

The drafters of the US Constitution proudly proclaimed 'We, the people' when, in fact, they meant, essentially, we, the landed class. Those in power -- the elite -- in each state were jealous of that power and unwilling to cede it to the federal government. Thus, only the representatives of the lower house were selected by the voters, and the voters were but a small minority of the people actually living within the boundaries of the country.

Athens, cited as the 'birthplace of democracy', selected people for public positions by lot in many instances. We see the last remnant of this in the selection of juries in the US. It prevented the rise of professional politicians and ensured that all** were keenly aware that they had a duty to the country.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* Seven of our states have but one federal congressional district.
** 'All', in Athens, as in 'All' in the US Constitution, certainly didn't include the majority.
 
Last edited:
actually that is exactly what leftist are pushing for is a pure mob rule democracy.
It is the only way they can silence their opposition.

a true democracy is the first wave to an authoritarian and dictatorship government.
it is the reason that our country was setup to not use a true democracy which the founding fathers saw
as corrupt and evil.

Stating your opinion forcefully doesn't magically turn it into a fact, that's not how debate works.
Your claim is not only pathetic for using terms like "leftist", it's inaccurate and unfounded, because if it wasn't, you'd be providing ample examples to buttress your overly emotional rants about "leftist".

Why don't you hit some leftist(s) with your purse, maybe that will fix the problem.

I'll wait while you provide some concrete examples that demonstrate this wild claim that "leftist" are leading some dominating campaign to turn the USA into a direct democracy.
 
The OP points to a problem common to republics. It is impossible to give each citizen equal say in the federal government if each state is to have an equal say unless each state has an exactly equal number of citizens. It would require that state boundaries be re-drawn as often as the minimum term in the federal government for an elected representative -- 2 years in the US -- just as state congressional district boundaries are re-drawn every 10 years or so.*

The drafters of the US Constitution proudly proclaimed 'We, the people' when, in fact, they meant, essentially, we, the landed class. Those in power -- the elite -- in each state were jealous of that power and unwilling to cede it to the federal government. Thus, only the representatives of the lower house were selected by the voters, and the voters were but a small minority of the people actually living within the boundaries of the country.

Athens, cited as the 'birthplace of democracy', selected people for public positions by lot in many instances. We see the last remnant of this in the selection of juries in the US. It prevented the rise of professional politicians and ensured that all** were keenly aware that they had a duty to the country.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* Seven of our states have but one federal congressional district.
** 'All', in Athens, as in 'All' in the US Constitution, certainly didn't include the majority.

I actually believe that the Electoral College in and of itself​ is not the big problem some make it out to be.
It's when we have the EC, along WITH things like Citizens United and gerrymandering that we see the kinds of problems we have today, and then when you add in the fact that the Voting Rights Act was gutted, it exacerbates the problem even more.

Get rid of all of the above, CU, gerrymandering and restore the Voting Rights Act and the Electoral College reverts back to being a crude balancing act, perhaps not perfect but not nearly as harmful as it is when used together with CU, gerrymandering and state sanctioned vote suppression.

You get to pick any of the above but not all four, you don't get to have the EC, plus CU, plus vote suppression, plus gerrymandering.
You get to pick just one, and I suspect that if that were the case, the EC would survive and the other three would be dispatched quickly.
 
I actually believe that the Electoral College in and of itself​ is not the big problem some make it out to be.
It's when we have the EC, along WITH things like Citizens United and gerrymandering that we see the kinds of problems we have today, and then when you add in the fact that the Voting Rights Act was gutted, it exacerbates the problem even more.

Get rid of all of the above, CU, gerrymandering and restore the Voting Rights Act and the Electoral College reverts back to being a crude balancing act, perhaps not perfect but not nearly as harmful as it is when used together with CU, gerrymandering and state sanctioned vote suppression.

You get to pick any of the above but not all four, you don't get to have the EC, plus CU, plus vote suppression, plus gerrymandering.
You get to pick just one, and I suspect that if that were the case, the EC would survive and the other three would be dispatched quickly.

Hi!

Thank you for taking time to respond at length.

As you noted, the Electoral College is but one of the ways in which our process of selecting those who represent us in our several governments is skewed from a simple 'one man, one vote'. A phrase attributed to the late Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi has been running around my wetware for a while now. It goes, 'What you do for me but without me, you do to me.' Our government ostensibly acts for us. There is, however, a distinct fuzziness surrounding the definition of 'us'*.

* The fortuitous coincidence of 'us' and 'US' comes to mind here. [Ed.: Words are Torus34's Lego(r) blocks.]
 
Hi!

Thank you for taking time to respond at length.

As you noted, the Electoral College is but one of the ways in which our process of selecting those who represent us in our several governments is skewed from a simple 'one man, one vote'. A phrase attributed to the late Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi has been running around my wetware for a while now. It goes, 'What you do for me but without me, you do to me.' Our government ostensibly acts for us. There is, however, a distinct fuzziness surrounding the definition of 'us'*.

* The fortuitous coincidence of 'us' and 'US' comes to mind here. [Ed.: Words are Torus34's Lego(r) blocks.]

I just happen to believe that the other aforementioned issues compound the flaws in the EC, and that by itself the EC is by far the least harmful of them all. It is flawed, it is at cross purposes in some ways, however it is the existence of the EC together with these other items that combine together to cause the harm we are witnessing now, because CU enhances manufacture of consent, the gutting of the VRA enhances vote suppression and gerrymandering distorts the field to where candidates pick their voters instead of vice versa.

By itself, the EC is pretty much "grading on a curve" or "weighting a poll" to reflect conditions.
But it is not in and of itself a "finger on the scale"...that's what CU, gerrymandering and vote suppression are used for.
 
I just happen to believe that the other aforementioned issues compound the flaws in the EC, and that by itself the EC is by far the least harmful of them all. It is flawed, it is at cross purposes in some ways, however it is the existence of the EC together with these other items that combine together to cause the harm we are witnessing now, because CU enhances manufacture of consent, the gutting of the VRA enhances vote suppression and gerrymandering distorts the field to where candidates pick their voters instead of vice versa.

By itself, the EC is pretty much "grading on a curve" or "weighting a poll" to reflect conditions.
But it is not in and of itself a "finger on the scale"...that's what CU, gerrymandering and vote suppression are used for.

It's possible, I think, to do a rough summation of the problems you've noted and ascribe them to the 'war between the parties' -- the apparently recently* intensified struggle for dominance between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. A number of the early Federalist papers were devoted to a concern over 'factions'. It cannot be said that the drafters of the Constitution were unaware of 'what evil lurks in the hearts of men.'

It's been nice chatting with you. I suspect we could wile away a few hours over a bottle of red.

Sincere regards.

* An oldster, I view 'recent' as anything within the past three decades.
 
Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.

It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.

All the more reason that the Federal government should have less power and spend less of our money, and a lot of what it currently does should be handled at the state level where every vote counts equally. That was probably the premise for electoral system in the first place.

But all it would take for this to change would be for the 11 or 12 states with the largest populations to agree to change their laws to allocate all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. How hard can that be?
 
Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.

It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.

You could always move to Wyoming if you really think it's that big a deal.
 
Stating your opinion forcefully doesn't magically turn it into a fact, that's not how debate works.
Your claim is not only pathetic for using terms like "leftist", it's inaccurate and unfounded, because if it wasn't, you'd be providing ample examples to buttress your overly emotional rants about "leftist".

Why don't you hit some leftist(s) with your purse, maybe that will fix the problem.

I'll wait while you provide some concrete examples that demonstrate this wild claim that "leftist" are leading some dominating campaign to turn the USA into a direct democracy.

Do you have any more softballs?

Ocasio-Cortez blasts Electoral College as a 'scam' | TheHill
 
You could always move to Wyoming if you really think it's that big a deal.

And since you don't think it is, you are fine with two votes for black people.
 
Back
Top Bottom