• 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!

The Electoral College is a broken anachronism and needs to be fixed.

ttwtt78640 said:
He is a she and a majority of vote is over 50% of the total votes, not simply more or a plurality of the total votes.

Electoral systems in Georgia

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org
Click to expand...
What was being compared was just the straight up vote tallies though unless I misunderstood. Doesn’t really matter since it’s moot anyways because that not how it’s done. Regardless I agree with @BirdinHand that the EC system awards power disproportionately and is unfair.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That would require changing the population figure used to include only US citizens and increasing the number of the US House representatives from 435 to about 6,600.
Click to expand...

That is a more reasonable number.
 
BirdinHand said:
Yeah...but the Senate is designed to be a different type of representative body on purpose.

The EC would increase dramatically in size if we keep the same formula.
Click to expand...

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."


If only Connecticut could have gotten their shit together.
 
TangoNoCash said:
What was being compared was just the straight up vote tallies though unless I misunderstood. Doesn’t really matter since it’s moot anyways because that not how it’s done. Regardless I agree with @BirdinHand that the EC system awards power disproportionately and is unfair.
Click to expand...

That was by design, in order to get states with lower populations to agree to form the nation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It does now, within each state.
Click to expand...
Two candidates have lost the popular vote but still became president just since the turn of the century. It's a ridiculous system.
 
roguenuke said:
Your attempt here has nothing to do with the EC though, not really. The voters also didn't vote over 50% for the majority of those who also won the EC too. The two aren't really as related as you are implying.

As long as they are still getting more votes than everyone else running, I support it. We have rules to limit who can run already.
Click to expand...
So you have no limits on how small of a minority rule you would support?

30% of the vote would be fine to elect a president? 18% really?

I think the majority of Americans would prefer a majority rule. I think your reforms to accept minority rule will not be very popular.
 
BirdinHand said:
I didn't make the rules. I just follow them.


If you want to change how voting occurs in the US - make your case and then amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I don't support minority rule, and the constitution has protected that for 45/46 elections.

I'm comfortable with that record.

You would need to amend the constitution to encourage your view of minority rule. I don't think your views will be popular.
 
Metric Mouse said:
So you have no limits on how small of a minority rule you would support?

30% of the vote would be fine to elect a president? 18% really?

I think the majority of Americans would prefer a majority rule. I think your reforms to accept minority rule will not be very popular.
Click to expand...
The majority of Americans have no idea how the actual system works now. The majority polled though would be fine with, in fact want to go with popular vote.

www.pewresearch.org

Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

63% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Eliminate the cap on the House and bring the number of citizens one House member represents down to a reasonable number. Say, 50,000. That would help a great deal and requires no amendment.
Click to expand...
Why so low?

A House with 6000 Representatives is a bit ridiculous when the Senate still has 100 Senators. Maybe use 500K

In any event, the EC is functioning as designed. The direct popular vote was thrown out early to protect low-population states.
 
Metric Mouse said:
I don't support minority rule, and the constitution has protected that for 45/46 elections.

I'm comfortable with that record.

You would need to amend the constitution to encourage your view of minority rule. I don't think your views will be popular.
Click to expand...
Also, check your numbers. You don't understand how many elections for President we've had.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That was by design, in order to get states with lower populations to agree to form the nation.
Click to expand...
Sure. That incentive period has arguably ended and that promise has outlived it’s usefulness.
 
Jay59 said:
In any event, the EC is functioning as designed.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Not even remotely. Leaving aside it was obsolete by the 3rd election requiring it to be completely overhauled, Chiafalo v Washington ensures it will never functions as designed. Unless it is overturned, of course.
 
BabaVoss said:
You can see how broken our system is as a Presidential election no longer focuses on what is best for most Americans, but rather what is best to get the most EC votes. This system disenfranchises Americans across the board. 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia).

This makes no sense.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
A lot of American angst is tied to the notion that our system of government allows the minority to have rule of the majority. That is not healthy for a democracy. Unfortunately, the EC is one of the tools that enables such.

In fact, over the last 30 years, the Republican presidential candidate would generally not have won the White House without the EC. The Republican party has no real incentive to address the needs of the people, just incentive to address some needs of the states that can get them elected. They are fundamentally gaming the EC system with very bad result of the American people.

I was a big believer in the electoral college system before I started seeing the that Republicans are merely gaming it. Plus, its history is largely rooted in protecting slavery in the South, so it has unholy origins. Now, I am an advocate of its abolishment.

DrewPaul said:
Ironically if Trump wins the popular vote, suddenly winning the popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing.
Click to expand...
Trump has about a 47% ceiling on his support. He ain't winnin' the popular vote. You might try another more realistic example.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
Two candidates have lost the popular vote but still became president just since the turn of the century. It's a ridiculous system.
Click to expand...

Changing that would require constitutional amendment which would have to be accepted (ratified) by 38 states to pass.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Changing that would require constitutional amendment which would have to be accepted (ratified) by 38 states to pass.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS could throw it out, as they do stuff like that now. However, this SCOTUS won't, because empty tracts of land tend to prefer Republican candidates.
 
TangoNoCash said:
I am for doing whatever needs to be done to enable popular ranked choice voting.
Click to expand...

Ranked choice voting requires coalition building and consensus. It is the opposite of bending people to your will and ruling with an iron fist. Most Republicans hate it.
 
Helix said:
The SCOTUS could throw it out, as they do stuff like that now. However, this SCOTUS won't, because empty tracts of land tend to prefer Republican candidates.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but does "it" refer to an amendment to the constitution?
 
medi said:
Excuse me, but does "it" refer to an amendment to the constitution?
Click to expand...

They threw out Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment so why not a whole one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom