• 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!

Is the purpose of the electoral college to thwart the will of the people? When the majority of voters select one person and the E.C. another...

Integrityrespec said:
Of course the reason originally was as much because the founding fathers didn't think the American people were capable of getting it right. Nice way of saying not smart enough.
Click to expand...
This has never been correct. The founding fathers very much thought other White land owning men were sufficiently educated and "capable of getting it right". They certainly never expressed the contrary view that some other minority population was, by contrast, smart enough to "get it right".

The EC exists for the same reason that no state has less than 1 Congressman, and none has less than 2 Senators, no matter how small the population. It has to do with setting a minimum baseline of representation, AND it also has to do with those EC representatives being able to travel to D.C. in a reasonable time frame, to cast their vote as representatives of their State, because there was no mass telecommunication at the time.
 
Along Came Jones said:
I can assure you that there are in Texas a passel of enthusiastically optimistic Democrats who disagree with you. Every vote is meaningful. Every vote counts.
Click to expand...
Its possible in that the EC could go for Harris in Texas but very unlikely:

For Texas:

Trump wins 87 times out of 100
in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
Harris wins 13 times out of 100.

Many states are far worse:

For Alabama:

Trump wins more than 99 times out of 100
in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
Harris wins less than 1 time out of 100.

For Illinois:

Harris wins 99 times out of 100
in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
Trump wins 1 time out of 100.

If your vote has a 1% or less chance of counting that’s pretty hopeless and that is the case in many states.

The numbers are current estimates from 538.
Along Came Jones said:
My ballot included not only Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Green Party candidates for President/Vice President but also six -- six -- certified write in candidates for President/Vice President. Countable, meaningful votes are not limited to votes cast for winning candidates. Nor are votes cast for dark horse candidates a waste. That such a number of citizens are empowered to seek the office is a demonstration of the health of and faith in the electoral system. Even in possibly the reddest of red states.
Click to expand...
Votes in non battleground states for dark horse candidates are fine. They make a statement but have no impact on the election. However, votes for dark horse candidates in battleground states are a waste and can easily result in exactly the opposite outcome a voter would want if the dark horse candidate chose between the only two candidates that count.

A perfect example of this is the morons in Michigan who are planning in voting for Stein because they support Palestinians but are actually helping the Muslim ban guy. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 
maquiscat said:
These are not positions that people are voted into.
Click to expand...

I see, you're interpreting "position" to mean "office". Yes, that's true.

But it's a distinction without much of a difference. Very significant votes are taken on a basis that is not simply majoritarian.
 
bongsaway said:
And that person has received less votes and yet 'wins' the election, isn't that thwarting the will of the people?
Click to expand...
The purpose of the EC is too give small states a voice such as Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island a voice and to prevent a demagogue such as Trump from becoming president.
 
Brack said:
The purpose of the EC is too give small states a voice such as Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island a voice and to prevent a demagogue such as Trump from becoming president.
Click to expand...
You are looking at physically small states, but the same principle applies to states that are small population wise, such as Montana. In fact New Hampshire and Rhode Island get more than Montana does, and Connecticut gets more than twice what Montana does.
 
bongsaway said:
And that person has received less votes and yet 'wins' the election, isn't that thwarting the will of the people?
Click to expand...
The "will of the people" is that the Constitution of the United States of America be the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
Bullseye said:
Nope. That's exactly how the Founders designed it - to prevent mob rule, aka tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
Actually "the Founders" designed the Electoral College so that the Constitution of the United States of America would be ratified by a sufficient number of former colonies to come into effect and to create a single nation consisting of those former colonies which had ratified it.

WITHOUT the Electoral College, that simply wasn't going to happen (or so "the Founders" believed).
 
maquiscat said:
You are looking at physically small states, but the same principle applies to states that are small population wise, such as Montana. In fact New Hampshire and Rhode Island get more than Montana does, and Connecticut gets more than twice what Montana does.
Click to expand...
Montana was not even an imagined state when the EC was conceived and implemented. The question posed in the OP harkens back to the intentions of the founding framers of the Constitution. The original 13 states.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually "the Founders" designed the Electoral College so that the Constitution of the United States of America would be ratified by a sufficient number of former colonies to come into effect and to create a single nation consisting of those former colonies which had ratified it.

WITHOUT the Electoral College, that simply wasn't going to happen (or so "the Founders" believed).
Click to expand...
Yep, and the reason they did that was to prevent the more populous North from out muscling the agrarian South in presidential elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
BlueTex said:
The "mob" they were afraid of had very dark skin... :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Not even an issue at the time the Constitution was being written. Nor were women. Check your history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
vanceen said:
Apart from every vote in the Senate?

Apart from the states voting on Constitutional amendments?
Click to expand...
You refer to the need of a super majority, which is not the same thing. However, as long as you brought it up, that's also undemocratic.
 
MamboDervish said:
Montana was not even an imagined state when the EC was conceived and implemented. The question posed in the OP harkens back to the intentions of the founding framers of the Constitution. The original 13 states.
Click to expand...
Granted, but they didn't have to. They had already accounted for such when the made both the House and the EC population based with a minimum of 1 Representative and 2 Senators, providing a minimum of 3 electors, and more if the population grew.
 
bongsaway said:
And that person has received less votes and yet 'wins' the election, isn't that thwarting the will of the people?
Click to expand...
The purpose of the electoral college is so that we're not the United States of California and New York. Or the United States have a few giant cities.

People who live in big cities like to pretend they're sophisticated and intelligent and what they know doesn't work outside of their City. So it's to spread out power between places rather than people. Remember democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
 
Brack said:
The purpose of the EC is too give small states a voice such as Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island a voice and to prevent a demagogue such as Trump from becoming president.
Click to expand...
Wrong, that's not the purpose. Look it up.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The "will of the people" is that the Constitution of the United States of America be the Constitution of the United States of America.
Click to expand...
No it's not. How can the constitution be the will of the people when none of us were around when it was written? The constitution was the will of the founding fathers, the guys who thought only white male landowners should vote, while they created flowery documents saying all men are created equal when some of them owned slaves. Did women and black folks have no wills, no voices? No, they didn't.
 
trixare4kids said:
Are you seriously asking, or seriously hoping you're correct?
The founders got it right. They didn't trust a system of direct democracy.
Click to expand...
So you are agreeing with them, you are too stupid to vote. I disagree with them and I think they got it wrong as far as the EC is concerned.
 
MamboDervish said:
Montana was not even an imagined state when the EC was conceived and implemented. The question posed in the OP harkens back to the intentions of the founding framers of the Constitution. The original 13 states.
Click to expand...
The purpose was the same though as the original 13 though.
 
I'd just as soon do without it, but changing it requires an amendment.

Good luck with that.
 
bongsaway said:
No it's not. How can the constitution be the will of the people when none of us were around when it was written? The constitution was the will of the founding fathers, the guys who thought only white male landowners should vote, while they created flowery documents saying all men are created equal when some of them owned slaves. Did women and black folks have no wills, no voices? No, they didn't.
Click to expand...
Amend the Constitution ... If that is the 'current' will of the people.

Godspeed
 
Hip septuagenarian said:
You refer to the need of a super majority, which is not the same thing. However, as long as you brought it up, that's also undemocratic.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not referring to a supermajority.

Any vote in the Senate gives equal votes to every state, no matter their population.

And a constitutional amendment requires ratification by three fourths of the states, no matter their population.

It's the same principle as the electoral college, except that the electoral college is actually weighted to give higher population states more electoral votes (although it is not strictly proportional).
 
Fletch said:
No, I have no idea. But the desperation in the left wing posters here is definitely a clue as to what they think.
Click to expand...

Request from a fan: Please give serious consideration to putting "Mwahahahahaaaa" as your signature, it would complete the whole cryptic villain shtick, and make your content even more entertaining.

A GIF of lightning flashing on a dark stormy night would be awesome too.
 
Hip septuagenarian said:
As elitists, they didn't trust the "great unwashed," but I believe we've grown since then.
Click to expand...
I think we have too, but I still don't trust a direct democracy. I would rather have rights guaranteed despite what a majority might want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom