• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The electoral college is broken

R

RandyJohnson

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that is is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.
 
Oh? The Electoral College is broken because your preferred candidate didn't win?

This is what passes for intellectual discussion among Democrats these days?
 
Actually the electora college is broken and it isn't needed anymore. It was needed at a time when not everyone could get together and vote. Since that isn't the case anymore, there is good reason to have it go away IMO.

Also, the electoral college this election is going to favor Obama and even though I voted for him, I still think it is broken and unneeded.
 
My, my, my, what a frustration demonstration of historcial ignorance.

The EC only existed to facilitate voting by geographically dispersed people?

The EC has been under attack nearly since the beginning of its establishment.

I happen to agree with the late Daniel Moynihan when he concluded, after scouring the globe for a more stable political system than our own, and finding none, traced that belief back to the establishment of the EC.

EC critics have the burden of proof to show that an alternate system would produce better Presidents in a more clear and decisive manner.

Well?
 
JMak said:
EC critics have the burden of proof to show that an alternate system would produce better Presidents in a more clear and decisive manner.

Well?
Click to expand...

And in the last 4 election cycles, how has the EC produced better presidents?
 
I believe the EC is still needed due to the disproportionate distribution of our population. The EC seems to work fine as long as SCOTUS can keep its right wing nose out of elections. Even tho they were brought into the 2000 election, the right wing majority should have acted in a more honorable fashion. Honor and integrity will be restored to SCOTUS with Obama's appointments. :applaud :2usflag:
 

If/when Obama wins, will you still conclude the EC is broken?


If so, I'll tend to agree with you.

I live in Delaware. The EC votes from Delaware will go to Obama regardless of who I vote for. My vote means nothing.
 
The E.C. was good when it was created, but now that the American people
know more about the Prez. Candidates then they do their own neighbor, the
intent of the E.C. is no obsolete.

We should let the States pop Vote Determine the Percentage of the States
votes to each Candidate! Also take away the "Winner take all Rule".
And add Instant Runoff Voting. That way "We the People" would have more
ability to "DIRECTLY" hold these Crooks you call Politicians accountable. !
 
Dragonfly said:
If/when Obama wins, will you still conclude the EC is broken?


If so, I'll tend to agree with you.

I live in Delaware. The EC votes from Delaware will go to Obama regardless of who I vote for. My vote means nothing.
Click to expand...

No it's not! You can Vote for Paul(Write in) or his Proxy Baldwin, Nader or any
third party candidate you like! That will send a message to the REPS&DEMS
in Washington that the American Voters are sick of the Crap that those two
parties are "Jointly" pulling on the US Taxpayer !

If those Crooks smell THEIR OWN BLOOD, they might start to do a better job
in D.C. . But as long as the American Sheeple line up in Droves to support
those two Corrupt Parties, those Parties will not consider changing their
Corrupt ways !!!
Because ~95% of the US Voters just gave them a pass or Thumbs ups
by putting them back in Power !!!!
 

If this country only went to the popular vote, many states in this Republic would no longer have a say in the election of the President. Most elections would be decided by a few coastal states with vast populations who lean to a single party.

There is nothing broken about it other than your man or woman didn't get elected last time.

What is broken is an understanding of how the system works and why it was included in our Constitution; I would suggest is that the only thing broken is an education that doesn't educate its citizens about the most important document in the land.

Here is why we have an Electoral College and why it was so brilliant; here are some excerpts:

What, then, were the Founders trying to achieve? Most fundamentally, they were trying to achieve a system that could protect individual rights from encroachment by any of the forces threatening them: an internal dictator, an external invasion, influence by foreign governments, or a gang of coercive citizens. The Founders were equally suspicious of and opposed to the tyranny of the monarch and the tyranny of the mob. (This opposition to mob violence is one reason John Adams had defended a British soldier who shot into a group of attacking Bostonians in pre-revolution Massachusetts). The Founders' mission was to devise a system that ensured no part of the government nor any popular faction could gain so much political power as to become a threat to liberty.

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union & acting in concert to delude them into any appointment."

This emphasis on mass ignorance is the thing that grates the most on the modern intellectuals. In an era of egalitarianism, it strikes them as "elitist" that some men should declare themselves to be more intelligent than the lowliest worker. However, it is a fact that there is a difference in the level of knowledge of government and the requirements for a good executive among different people. Indeed, we strive to elect the best (at least the Founders did), not the stupidest. All the Founders are doing here is attempting to make the mechanism of election consistent with that ultimate purpose.

Candidates must win a majority (or plurality) in a state or they get no electoral votes from that state. This means that a candidate's margin is increased when he wins a state (except in the highly unlikely event that he were to win the state's popular vote completely), and people in that state are throwing away their vote if they vote for a very minor third- or fourth-party candidate. This has been very important in avoiding the balkanization of political parties that has harmed European governments. Distribution of political power is a desirable goal, but the complete disintegration of the executive branch, requiring the need for coalition governments and backroom deals to get one party elected, would not serve the protection of individual rights. (Imagine the two major-party candidates having a runoff with Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and the libertarian candidate, and having to dicker with these three for their votes in order to become the president.)

The rest of the article:

In Defense of the Electoral College
 
ADK_Forever said:
IEven tho they were brought into the 2000 election, the right wing majority should have acted in a more honorable fashion. Honor and integrity will be restored to SCOTUS with Obama's appointments. :applaud :2usflag:
Click to expand...

This is interesting denial. The one who acted with unprecedented dishonor was Al Gore, the dumbest man on earth, who after not winning the Electoral votes in Florida attempted to disenfranchise the voters of Florida by divining votes from hanging and dimpled chads.

It was a despicable unprecedented display of poor conduct and has served to further polarize the parties.

The notion that Democrats in their whiney diatribes about stealing the Florida election acted honorably is laughable and not supported by the facts.

The notion that a candidate, Obama, who has spent an unprecedented obscene amount of money to BUY an election ($605 million and counting), has produced an unprecedented 30 minute INFOmercial for prime time, lied about working with his opponent to accept public funding for the election, hides from his past associations, is somehow going to be more honorable requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

:rofl
 
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
The E.C. was good when it was created, but now that the American people
know more about the Prez. Candidates then they do their own neighbor, the
intent of the E.C. is no obsolete.
Click to expand...

That's giving the American people WAY too much credit.
 

So basically, your argument is that because Democrats should always win, we should do away with the EC. That's more illustrative of why we have the EC and need to keep it.

George Bush didn't create the economic conditions that are leading us into a recession, one I might add we have not entered or have any idea how bad it can get, you need to thank your Democrat pals like Barney Frank and Bill Clinton for creating the conditions in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ignoring those conditions when warned about them, that helped lead to the sub prime mortgage mess that compounded when RE demand dropped off and prices fell.

It requires immense arrogance to suggest that had Gore been elected, we would be in better condition today. It also requires one to ignore 9-11, the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the disastrous effects of Hurricane Katrina.

When I see people like you making such statements, they cannot point to ONE Government policy that would have made the economy better. Government distorts markets and, as has been shown in the Sub prime mess, exacerbates the normal economic cycles we experience over time in many case making things far worse had they stayed out of it.

I am happy to see you voted for Obama, a person who promises to further destroy capital formation necessary to create the jobs we need to keep the economy going and making promises he can't possibly keep because the Government doesn't have any more money to spend; it is BROKE.

There are far worse issues confronting the ignorant masses of America; the threat of another large scale terrorist attack, the growing Budget Deficit and the wanton printing of currency to fund the newly raised $11.3 trillion debt. Nothing in Obama’s plan addresses these issues; his plan only makes it worse.
 
So you think that YOU are able to decided if the Electoral College is broken? Hahahahahah
 
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
....but now that the American people
know more about the Prez. Candidates then they do their own neighbor,
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth. A recent spoof from a well known Radio Station proved the ignorance of the American people when it comes to the candidates and the media's willingness to set aside objectivism for promoting THIER man have served to make the masses even more ignorant.

Recently, using pictures of Justice Ginsberg, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, one other politician I cannot think of and Judge Judy; ALL the people asked could pick out Judge Judy, only ONE knew who Dick Cheney was and all of them had no clue who the others were.

In the radio station spoof, voters were asked who they supported; when they stated they were voting for Obama, the interviewer asked if they were okay with his choice of a running mate in Sarah Palin; ALL the answers where in the affirmative.

The notion that the average voter has even the remotest clue about the candidates they are voting for or the issues can only be expressed from a position of willful ignorance.

In this clip, the interviewer deliberately reverses the true positions of the candidates to see if the voters notice:

YouTube - Howard Stern - 1/10/2008 - Sal Interviews "Obama Supporters" in Harlem

YouTube - Just How Stupid Are Americans?

Then there is this Presidential candidate who goes beyond a gaff by not even getting close to how many States there are in the Union:

YouTube - Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States
 
Last edited:

Finland has experienced its most stable government since independence with a five-party governing coalition established during the 1990s.

Japan has had coalition governments since the '90s, which came into existence in 1993 after the defeat of Liberal Democratic Party, and it is present still today.

Advocates of proportional representation suggest that a coalition government leads to more consensus-based politics, in that a government comprising differing parties (often based on different ideologies) would need to concur in regard to governmental policy. Another stated advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.

The two-party U.S. system has become a failure with its rampant corruption. Government has shown its impotency in getting effective legislation passed with balanced budgets. Lobbyists and key interest groups have essentially taken over, getting malicious self-serving laws passed that shake our economy to the core, penalize hard working Americans, and bring liberty to her knees.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
And in the last 4 election cycles, how has the EC produced better presidents?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? For crying out lud. This is how you respond to my comment that you quoted?

Look, the burden is on the critics to demonstrate that an alternative electoral process would have better results. They are arguing against the current system which they believe is flawed for any number of reasons.

Okay, well, lets have it, present a superior alternative system.
 
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
The E.C. was good when it was created, but now that the American people
know more about the Prez. Candidates then they do their own neighbor, the
intent of the E.C. is no obsolete.
Click to expand...

The ignorance 'round here is staggering.

The EC was never intended to remedy an informational dysfunction.
 

Although it is convenient for you to ignore the long historic failures of European forms of parliamentary Governments, but when looked at over the over 200 years of America's history, the facts do not support your assertions over time.

Additionally, Finland has the population of Los Angeles Metro at about 5,238,460. Japan has the population of 127,433,494 and has had nothing but turmoil and corruption over the last ten years:

Japan's political turmoil
Japan's political turmoil - UPIU.com

More Turmoil In Japan
More Turmoil In Japan - Forbes.com

REPORT ON RECENT BRIBERY SCANDALS, 1996-2000
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN13118.pdf

Cool Sites : Corruption in Japan
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Posted: 09:55 AM JST
News and Photos of Japan - Cool Sites : Corruption in Japan



Rampant corruption? You must have a very loose definition of the term. But when the American people look the other way and keep electing corrupt politicians like Barney Frank, what do you expect?

As for Government working; I guess you forgot why our founders believed in separation of powers. Only people who think Government actually works and is better than the free market think that we would WANT Government to work. Federal Government programs make things worse for EVERYONE, particularly those they attempt to help.

The BIGGEST threat to Americans in this election is the undertanding that there will be no checks and balances on the Democrats if Obama gets elected.

There is not just a two party system in this country; but it has evolved into two major parties thanks to the media and Americans choices. This does evolve but takes decades or centuries to change.

How does doing away with the electoral process and guaranteeing that the highly populated areas of the NE and Pacific coast get to choose all our Presidents make things BETTER?

The people who keep re-electing intellectual midgets like Barney Franks, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi would be the same ones selecting your Presidents. If you think that works better, I can’t help you with your denial.
 

Funny how you ignore the similar coalition-run governments in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere that are completely dysfunctional.

Despite Japan's coalitional government it suffered a nearly decade-long recession through the late 80s and into the early 90s as that government ran deficits greater than Japan's total GDP.
 
I'll tell you a much better solution to our election problems, California needs to be broken up into smaller parts, allowing such a large territory to exist was a monumental mistake, and 55 electoral votes in the hands of one group of people is insane. Unfortunately my idea is unconstutitonal.
 
Was MC supporting such an approach, or was he just stating some facts?
 

I would support a State amendment to distribute California’s VAST electoral vote count based on the popular vote; but the Democrats in charge of Sacramento will fight it tooth and nail much like they have fought a neutral commission for redistricting.
 
Truth Detector said:
Although it is convenient for you to ignore the long historic failures of European forms of parliamentary Governments, but when looked at over the over 200 years of America's history, the facts do not support your assertions over time.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of a European style of government, just a true representation of our Constitution as set forth by the framers, and further deliniated in the Federalist papers, namely Feralist #10 by James Madison. He expected factions (political parties), and multiple parties was the model envisioned (not a polarized two party system that we have today.)

Rampant corruption? You must have a very loose definition of the term. But when the American people look the other way and keep electing corrupt politicians like Barney Frank, what do you expect?
Click to expand...

I don't get why you think my definition must be loose. You've cited a good example (the best one) with Barney Frank, since that is a centerpiece in the financial crisis we face today.

Definitions of corruption on the Web:

* corruptness: lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain
* putrescence: in a state of progressive putrefaction
* decay of matter (as by rot or oxidation)
* moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles; "the luxury and corruption among the upper classes"; "moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration"; "its brothels, its opium parlors, its depravity"; "Rome had fallen into moral putrefaction"
* destroying someone's (or some group's) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity; "corruption of a minor"; "the big city's subversion of rural innocence"
* inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by commiting a felony); "he was held on charges of corruption and racketeering"


Not all government programs are bad. But with the system set up the way it is today, it is too prone to vested interests getting their way instead of for the common good.

The BIGGEST threat to Americans in this election is the undertanding that there will be no checks and balances on the Democrats if Obama gets elected.
Click to expand...

100 % agree. It's the main reason I would prefer McCain win.

There is not just a two party system in this country; but it has evolved into two major parties thanks to the media and Americans choices. This does evolve but takes decades or centuries to change.
Click to expand...

It takes as long to change as it we as a populace demand it change. Getting the media to change its way will accelerate the process greatly.

How does doing away with the electoral process and guaranteeing that the highly populated areas of the NE and Pacific coast get to choose all our Presidents make things BETTER?
Click to expand...

Please quote where I said the electoral process should be abandoned. I am in favor of it.

The people who keep re-electing intellectual midgets like Barney Franks, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi would be the same ones selecting your Presidents. If you think that works better, I can’t help you with your denial.
Click to expand...

I don't think it works better. I was commenting on your stance on multiple political parties, because it is an important subject to me that opens the door to a more effective and honest government than the one we have today.
 
Last edited:
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…