• 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

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.

Not so much. Actually, no other republic in the world has a system like the US electoral system distorting the value of the votes. There is no requirement about 'states having an equal say' in presidential elections. It couldn't be simpler, count the votes.
 
1 vote should have exactly the same value as any other regardless of where you live.
If you want your area to have a greater say get more people to move there.

If Republicans can't win under those rules maybe they should try and actually enact policies that are popular for a change.

The US electoral College is idiotic and there's a reason why no other country uses the system.
 
Are you still crying about how the country has been electing Presidents for its whole existence?

Are you crying about giving black people two votes?
 
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?

Using your numbers, one California elector represents 727,000 people, while only 166,000 Wyomingans get the same one elector. So an American in Wyoming gets over six times the voting power that an American in California does. Don't dissolve anything. Simply count the votes.
 

Uh oh, well there goes the neighborhood.
One junior Congressman has flipped everyone not in Trumplandia and turned them all out as die hard America hating commies.

My own views on the EC don't happen to align with AOC's, as stated in this thread.
You still haven't provided anything concrete to back up your wildly exaggerated and mostly hysterical hyperbole.
And you never will.
 
And since you don't think it is, you are fine with two votes for black people.

Well, that would be arbitrary. How about giving two votes to redheads? The electoral college system is a fundamental (and IMHO opinion well thought out) feature of our Republic. It actually binds us together as a nation. Whe they put it together VA had 700,000 residence and Delaware had 60,000. But it was important to codify that Delaware was as important to the nation as was Virginia.

The real problem is that the people and the states have ceded so much of their power to the Federal government, that it has an incredibly disproportionate impact on people's lives.
 
Uh oh, well there goes the neighborhood.
One junior Congressman has flipped everyone not in Trumplandia and turned them all out as die hard America hating commies.

My own views on the EC don't happen to align with AOC's, as stated in this thread.
You still haven't provided anything concrete to back up your wildly exaggerated and mostly hysterical hyperbole.
And you never will.

??? You asked for lefty leading a campaign to abolish the EC. Feel free to deny the impact of AOC on your party, but you should look to the actions of your leaders (e.g. Biden).
 
You have a point, but you're looking at it from the POV of the large states, who lose some power but remain powerful, rather than from the small states, whose choices are a little power or no power.

And you're nonsensically looking at 'states' as having some meaning in who should choose the president. Imagine if I said 'no race should dominate elections, so races with fewer people should get more votes, and races with more people should get fewer votes, so no race dominates'. That has MORE merit than saying 'states' deserve such equality. What matters is each individual voter getting one vote, not states as if they were the voters.

Unless you think people in the small states don't deserve to have any voice in national politics, then your solution will just makes things worse.

Unless you think black people don't deserve to have any voice in national politics, then your solution will just makes things worse. Your phrase 'no voice' is basically a lie - it's false. One vote per person is not 'not any voice'. Groups with few people don't get to win elections just by saying it's not fair for them not to win by not having more people. Their rights need to be protected other ways, but not by tyranny of the minority over the majority stealing elections.
 
Well, that would be arbitrary. How about giving two votes to redheads? The electoral college system is a fundamental (and IMHO opinion well thought out) feature of our Republic. It actually binds us together as a nation. Whe they put it together VA had 700,000 residence and Delaware had 60,000. But it was important to codify that Delaware was as important to the nation as was Virginia.

So the hell is the electoral system giving extra weight to low population states. There is nothing more fundamental about Wyoming than there is about black people - less so, actually. Wyoming doesn't have the history of different treatment black people do. It is NOT well thought out, it has no merit, it was simply corrupt political extortion. Delaware's equality had nothing to do with it, and it wasn't equal. It deserved 60,000 votes, and nothing more.

The real problem is that the people and the states have ceded so much of their power to the Federal government, that it has an incredibly disproportionate impact on people's lives.

That's an unrelated issue for you to deal with not by stealing elections.
 
Not so much. Actually, no other republic in the world has a system like the US electoral system distorting the value of the votes. There is no requirement about 'states having an equal say' in presidential elections. It couldn't be simpler, count the votes.

??? Would you prefer a system, such as in the UK or Germany, where the political parties or politicians get to choose their country's leader rather than the voters?
 
??? Would you prefer a system, such as in the UK or Germany, where the political parties or politicians get to choose their country's leader rather than the voters?

Other countries either have parliamentary systems, or they simply count the votes. My first choice is to count the votes. If I had to choose between our corrupted weighting of votes and an honest parliamentary system, I'd reluctantly pick the honest parliamentary system, but what I'm saying is we should just count the votes. It's remarkable the idiotic comments from some (forget who) calling counting the votes a "mob", as if electors are better to choose the president.
 
So the hell is the electoral system giving extra weight to low population states. There is nothing more fundamental about Wyoming than there is about black people - less so, actually. Wyoming doesn't have the history of different treatment black people do. It is NOT well thought out, it has no merit, it was simply corrupt political extortion. Delaware's equality had nothing to do with it, and it wasn't equal. It deserved 60,000 votes, and nothing more.



That's an unrelated issue for you to deal with not by stealing elections.

??? States are the fundamental political framework of our country. Black people aren't, white people aren't, Asians aren't. States are.
 
And the way things currently stand, any votes in California that go to anyone besides the Democratic candidate might as well be thrown in the trash. Millions of those votes de facto don't exist under the EC.

the article says you are 100% wrong.
CA gets to determine who they vote for president. All of the votes that are counted in CA go to that nominee. If that nominee wins CA then they get CA votes.
you are 100% wrong. that or you are just being 100% dishonest.

What the people in CA don't get to do is tell WY who they pick for president if the people in WY get to choose who they want for president just like the people in CA.
What you have an issue with is how CA decides to divide up their electoral votes.

The state of CA could easily award Electorals based on % of win in that state +1 to the winner.

That has nothing to do with the EC and no CA was at one point in time a mixture.
REagan won the state handily in the 80's and they elected a republican gov. in Arnold for 4 terms.

Also you argument is flawed. Do people that fail to pass an amendment they want lose their vote and their votes are wasted
because they lost it?

that is how elections work. The majority of the votes count.
the others counted as well you simply just didn't win.

not winning doesn't mean they were just thrown in the trash.
it si a horrible argument to make.
 
Last edited:
Are you crying about giving black people two votes?

I am. Very black people should have five votes, quite black people 4 votes down to black people who look like white people having two votes. Gay people obviously should have 2 votes and trans 4 votes. So a very black trans should have eight votes.

But I ask you this - how many votes should a brown, bi, trans socialist woman have? I warn you, if you say less than seven I will cry like billy-o.
 
And you're nonsensically looking at 'states' as having some meaning in who should choose the president. Imagine if I said 'no race should dominate elections, so races with fewer people should get more votes, and races with more people should get fewer votes, so no race dominates'. That has MORE merit than saying 'states' deserve such equality. What matters is each individual voter getting one vote, not states as if they were the voters.

States are the voters in the EC. Each state holds it's own election, and produces that state's result in the EC. That's as designed.

For the record, the Constitution as writ did exactly what you describe based on race. We changed that later.

If you want to change this, change it, but you've got your work cut out for you.
 
??? You asked for lefty leading a campaign to abolish the EC. Feel free to deny the impact of AOC on your party, but you should look to the actions of your leaders (e.g. Biden).

If anything does in the EC it will be a bipartisan effort known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. (NPVIC)
It is 74 electoral votes away from becoming effective. Of course, that is why it will have zero impact on the 2020 election, as there is no way the NPIVC will pick up 74 votes before November of this year.

But doing away with or otherwise nullifying the EC is not direct democracy for the same reason that popular vote elections for everything EXCEPT the presidency is not direct democracy either.
There is no "electoral college" for determining the winner of any race in Congress, or for city councilmen, or judges, or elected sheriffs, or mayors or governors.
And yet it's still not an indicator of direct democracy, it's an indicator of representative democracy.

So why don't you just admit that you hold all forms of democracy, including representative democracy, in contempt, so that at least you have SOME honesty and credibility in this abortion of a thread.
Running around with your hair on fire claiming that representative democracy is dangerous and a step to communism, socialism, etc is not working well for you at all.

hair on fire commie2.jpg
 
The electoral college is just another thing that needs to be fixed not removed.
Why the electoral college can't be more proportional? I don't know.
Everyone wants to compare Wyoming and California.
How about North Dakota and New Hampshire.
North Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes which is approximately 1 vote for every 250000 people.
New Hampshire has 4 electoral college votes which gives the people of New Hampshire 1 vote for every 350000 people.
Why do the people of North Dakota matter more than the people of New Hampshire?

Check out the electoral map if things were done in a more proportional way with every state having the same number of people represented by the same number of electors or congress people I think it would be more fair for everyone.

Imagine how many more electors states like Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma would get if it was all equal?

The cap on the house is ridiculous, the peoples house is kind of a joke when some members have to represent 750000, how the hell do they represent, listen to, get anything done for the people they represent?

I would think every American would want to be equal at least as far as political representation? Right?
 
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".

Facts do not care about your feelings. that is your issue. It is a fact that the founding fathers had a rather dim view of a true democracy.
In fact they absolutely wanted to stay away from a democracy as much as possible.

Our Founding Fathers wanted a republic, not a democracy | TheUnion.com

In fact they wrote about it constantly the dangers of a democracy.
The fact you have no rebuttal to fact says that my claims are 100% accurate.

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

Unlike you leftist i don't need to resort to violence. We know that is the only thing that you espouse is assaulting people
that do not believe or think or do the things that you think they should do. However this right here supports my argument 100%.
PS i do not carry a purse as I am a guy so your sexist language is not going to be tolerated.

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.

Get rid of the EC is the first step.
They have been leading mobs all over the US and have burned down cities over the past several months were have you been?

Defund the police etc ...

all based on mob rule and mob threats.
again i have to ask where have you been for 3 months.

actually this is what i expect from most leftist in general.
being obtuse is their number 1 go to method.
 
The electoral college is just another thing that needs to be fixed not removed.
Why the electoral college can't be more proportional? I don't know.

All the states have to do is pass a bill. How delegates are assigned are completely up to the states.

Everyone wants to compare Wyoming and California.
How about North Dakota and New Hampshire.

Because people like to be dishonest.

North Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes which is approximately 1 vote for every 250000 people.
New Hampshire has 4 electoral college votes which gives the people of New Hampshire 1 vote for every 350000 people.
Why do the people of North Dakota matter more than the people of New Hampshire?

Did you not take a high school government class?
I mean seriously this is like the millionth post of an american that has no clue how our government works.

the EC is compromised of 2 things. The number of Reps + senate.

The number of reps a state gets is based on the size of it's population.
All states get 1 rep no matter the size because you can't have .5 or .25 of a rep.
the person would be dead.

So in your comparison both ND and NH both get 1 rep because they do not have the population size to get anymore.

Now the senate.

The senate does not represent the number of people in a state. It represents the state itself.
In that fact All states are equal in power so every state gets 2 senators.

You do not included these 2 when looking at reps based on population.

both added together gives you the total EC.

Check out the electoral map if things were done in a more proportional way with every state having the same number of people represented by the same number of electors or congress people I think it would be more fair for everyone.

Get your state legislature to pass a bill to change it then.

Imagine how many more electors states like Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma would get if it was all equal?

Reps are based on population size. This is per the constitution.

The cap on the house is ridiculous, the peoples house is kind of a joke when some members have to represent 750000, how the hell do they represent, listen to, get anything done for the people they represent?

that is how it works. They could add more seats but the house would need a major overhaul to accomidate those people and fire regulations would have to be adhered to.

I would think every American would want to be equal at least as far as political representation? Right?

They do. That is why CA gets 53 reps and other states don't.

Although if all states had an equal amount of reps congress would then have to work more efficiently to get things passed.
 
Using your numbers, one California elector represents 727,000 people, while only 166,000 Wyomingans get the same one elector. So an American in Wyoming gets over six times the voting power that an American in California does. Don't dissolve anything. Simply count the votes.

I don't think you'd be happy until California had 270 electoral votes to the other 49 states 268. You want a rigged game pure and simple. Each state gets at least one representative. Perhaps you want to take him away also. Each state gets two senators, perhaps you want California to have 52 to every other states 48. I got you. 55-3 isn't good enough for you, you want more. You just want to destroy the union of the several states and have one huge land mass called California or what ever. I gave up on you a long time ago.
 
the article says you are 100% wrong.
CA gets to determine who they vote for president. All of the votes that are counted in CA go to that nominee. If that nominee wins CA then they get CA votes.
you are 100% wrong. that or you are just being 100% dishonest.

What the people in CA don't get to do is tell WY who they pick for president if the people in WY get to choose who they want for president just like the people in CA.
What you have an issue with is how CA decides to divide up their electoral votes.

The state of CA could easily award Electorals based on % of win in that state +1 to the winner.

That has nothing to do with the EC and no CA was at one point in time a mixture.
REagan won the state handily in the 80's and they elected a republican gov. in Arnold for 4 terms.

Also you argument is flawed. Do people that fail to pass an amendment they want lose their vote and their votes are wasted
because they lost it?

that is how elections work. The majority of the votes count.
the others counted as well you simply just didn't win.

not winning doesn't mean they were just thrown in the trash.
it si a horrible argument to make.

You get rid of the Electoral College and it ends the system of all of the votes in a single state going to a single candidate.
 
Not so much. Actually, no other republic in the world has a system like the US electoral system distorting the value of the votes. There is no requirement about 'states having an equal say' in presidential elections. It couldn't be simpler, count the votes.

Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

To get rid of the EC, all you have to do is convince the smaller, red states to vote themselves into irrelevancy.
 
I don't New York City and Los Angeles controlling my life.
 
You get rid of the Electoral College and it ends the system of all of the votes in a single state going to a single candidate.

that can be done now without getting rid of the EC. have your state change how they divide up the electoral votes.
you are doing what is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
Not so much. Actually, no other republic in the world has a system like the US electoral system distorting the value of the votes. There is no requirement about 'states having an equal say' in presidential elections. It couldn't be simpler, count the votes.

That's what makes The United States so awesome.
 
Back
Top Bottom