• 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!

Lots of folks seem to not mind the electoral college, here's another suggestion.

B

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
62,661
Reaction score
52,428
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Let's start using a graded system nationally. Top three candidates all get a percentage of the vote according to the numbers, no more winner takes all of the delegates.

When voting ends, all the numbers are added up and there's your winner, no more electoral college, no more electors, no more of politicians trying to negate the vote.
 
You then defeat the purpose of the electoral college. It's purpose is to ensure that the larger states cannot totally dominate national elections. Our government is set up to protect the smaller states and this includes the bicameral legislature. Senators, every state gets 2 so that their voice is heard. House of Representatives, representation by population which gives the larger states a bit more influence because of the larger population. The Constitution was carefully crafted to last and to guarantee both representation and protection of rights. There really is no better system, but the catch is our politicians have to be honorable and not abuse the system or ignore the law.
 
Electoral college designed as we are not a pure democracy. As has been said before, once 51% realize they can just vote to take away from the 49, it's the beginning of the end.
 
Greenbeard said:
Holding elections is not “pure democracy”!
Click to expand...
Getting rid of the Electoral College would make it so. In the OP scenario, the percentage of delegates received would be directly tied to the popular vote.
 
Artymoon said:
Getting rid of the Electoral College would make it so.
Click to expand...

It would not. Pure/direct democracy is when the voters decide on policy directly. An election to choose a public official to make policy decisions is not direct democracy. If that were so, every elected office in the United States at every level (other than president) is currently an example of direct democracy.
 
Yes, I understand. Pure democracy in this sense as it pertains to national elections which is the subject of the OP. Or maybe I should just say national popular vote wins. Either way, I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.
 

It would require a constitutional amendment or for every state to agree to go with it like the popular vote compact. Not going to happen.

Simply put, the easiest solution to the unequal power of the EC is to lift the arbitrary cap on the size of the House.
 
“This is a big moment in our country because we’re either going to go one way or the other, and if we go the other, we’re not going to have a country left,” he told supporters in South Dakota. “We will fight together, we will win together and then we will seek justice together." Trump's 2024 campaign and potential second term is based on “retribution.”

Which party is ultimately responsible for Donald Trump's presence in America's politics?

The answer may surprise you. The Democratic Party is responsible for Trump, and the majority of Americans have lived to regret it.

In 2016, the Democratic Party chose the worst possible candidate -- Hillary Clinton.

She had a ton of baggage left over from the Clinton Presidency. Then there were national security issues over the use of a private server. Indeed, during 2016 campaign she was under investigation by the FBI. If all that was not enough, Americans simply did not like her. Democrats nominated her, anyway.

Trump won because the Electoral College favors rural states with small populations. Trump was such a horrible candidate, he lost the popular vote to the heavily baggaged Clinton.

On top of all that, disappointed Sanders followers voted so strongly for Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin they overcame the Clinton vote. Trump won those three states, and, as a consequence, the Presidency. https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

So, of course, Democrats are responsible for Trump.

With their lackluster support for a Democratic Presidency ...

Will they do it again?
 
Large populated states (such as Florida and Pennsylvania) were instrumental with Trump winning in 2016. Trump lost small states such as Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Our government is set up to protect the smaller states and this includes the bicameral legislature.
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

"Our government is set up to allow fewer voters to overrule more voters."
 
Artymoon said:
Electoral college designed as we are not a pure democracy. As has been said before, once 51% realize they can just vote to take away from the 49, it's the beginning of the end.
Click to expand...
These kinds of posts in this topic can only exist as drivey-by's. If you actually stayed in this thread long enough to defend your position you'd be slaughtered, and you know it. So..bye bye artymoon.
 
Artymoon said:
Electoral college designed as we are not a pure democracy. As has been said before, once 51% realize they can just vote to take away from the 49, it's the beginning of the end.
Click to expand...
Artrymoon, you appear to be arguing that therefore, it's OK that the 49 can vote to take away from the 51%, right? You think that makes more sense, or less sense?
 
Artymoon said:
Electoral college designed as we are not a pure democracy. As has been said before, once 51% realize they can just vote to take away from the 49, it's the beginning of the end.
Click to expand...
The end of what, majority rule? Who wants to live where the majority rules instead of the minority ruling? Do you folks listen to the stuff you say and read the stuff you write?
 
Once again that was not he purpose, that is the reason every state has two senators.
 
No can do. I think it's capped at four hundred and sixty five votes from the house even though there are over five hundred electors.
 
bongsaway said:
No can do. I think it's capped at four hundred and sixty five votes from the house even though there are over five hundred electors.
Click to expand...

Because there is one elector for every House seat and one for every Senator. But the 435 seat cap on the House is arbitrary. It was established by an act of Congress and it can be undone by an act of Congress, no amendment needed.

The problem with the EC now is that it gives many states outsized influenced and the per capita Electoral College votes per state are not equal. By eliminating the cap on the size of the House, we can increase the citizen to rep ratio and restore the per capita vote balance.
 
I am for almost anything that would put more punch back into the votes of we the people and takes away more of the powers of others to negate your vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…