• 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

M14 Shooter said:
How do you determine who runs in the run-off?
And dont you still run the risk of the majoroty not voting for one of the candidates?
Click to expand...

well if there are three candidates and the vote lies at 49/48/3 then the candidate who got three shouldn't be in the run-off....but as I said before a run-off is fairly impractical and I don't recommend it....

M14 Shooter said:
No... all 50 states would have been recounted, as both candidates would have been looking to squeeze out every last vote.
Click to expand...

yeah I suppose you're right there.....in the current situation our counting system is also fouled up....we would have to count electronically or something like that....take human error out of the question.....make it so that you vote by computer and it's all loaded into a database of millions of votes....
 
goligoth said:
yeah I suppose you're right there.....in the current situation our counting system is also fouled up....we would have to count electronically or something like that....take human error out of the question.....make it so that you vote by computer and it's all loaded into a database of millions of votes....
Click to expand...

The problem in FL was the margin of victory was within the margin of error. There will always be error.
 
M14 Shooter said:
The problem in FL was the margin of victory was within the margin of error. There will always be error.
Click to expand...

If ,in some magical way, there could be about 5 or 6 computers each loaded with some sort of program that allows you to vote at every single place to vote in all of the U.S... And all of the votes were compiled electronically I think that the margin of error would dissapear..............of course getting all of those computers loaded with the same program and keeping them all secure would be a pain in the @ss.....which would be why it hasn't been done yet and probably won't get done for quite some time.....

so basically the bottom line is that if the electoral college were to be banned then every vote would have to get counted without any errors of any kind and that is impossible......that is why it was enacted and that was why it will continue to act.......hmph....
 
RightatNYU said:
And thank god for that.

People go on and on nowadays about how the founding fathers gave us freedom and democracy - uh, nope.

The founding fathers designed our government so as to best protect it from the will of the people. Mob rule was the biggest fear they faced.

Think about it...do you really want a Congress that is TRULY representative of the people? No.
Click to expand...
Well, I have been skimming what was said and this is the main point of the electoral college, which I actually stated quite clearly in the paper.

It creates a majority where there is none so that elected leaders have a mandate to rule. That is it and that is why it will remain.

Some of us, RightatNYU, do want a truly representative democracy where gerrymandering doesn't play a part in every election, where people's votes are counted equally.

Mainly I am just shocked that this thread actually got any attention...kudos to whomever responded to it first.
 
ShamMol said:
Mainly I am just shocked that this thread actually got any attention...kudos to whomever responded to it first.
Click to expand...

That would be me.....:mrgreen:

the reason I responded to this thread is because this is one of the few topics where I don't have to ask many questions.....
 
goligoth said:
That would be me.....:mrgreen:

the reason I responded to this thread is because this is one of the few topics where I don't have to ask many questions.....
Click to expand...
Yeah, I kinda get that, but sometimes IU find that even though I did a month long research project on the electoral college (ending up writing a longer paper than this for the final), there are still elements of it that bother me and that I do not completely understand.
 
ShamMol said:
Yeah, I kinda get that, but sometimes IU find that even though I did a month long research project on the electoral college (ending up writing a longer paper than this for the final), there are still elements of it that bother me and that I do not completely understand.
Click to expand...

......the reason it bothers you and me is because it is slightly idiotic....
 
goligoth said:
If ,in some magical way, there could be about 5 or 6 computers each loaded with some sort of program that allows you to vote at every single place to vote in all of the U.S... And all of the votes were compiled electronically I think that the margin of error would dissapear..............of course getting all of those computers loaded with the same program and keeping them all secure would be a pain in the @ss.....which would be why it hasn't been done yet and probably won't get done for quite some time.....
Click to expand...

I have to concur here, I think that a computerized system can be done and it can be made secure. Computer scientists are currently working on programs that output proofs that it has done what it needed to do. Maybe engineers and scientists can conceive of a way that these voting computers output proofs that they have indeed counted every vote. These proofs would be very useful in any electoral dispute.

goligoth said:
so basically the bottom line is that if the electoral college were to be banned then every vote would have to get counted without any errors of any kind and that is impossible......that is why it was enacted and that was why it will continue to act.......hmph....
Click to expand...

I've been thinking on this and reading a little, and I have some new perspective. A few things would need to happen in order to have a nation-wide vote.

First of all, there needs to be a nation-wide standard for voter eligability. This is very important, because suppose no such standard exists. Then, to increase their representation, some state might let 17 year olds vote. Not to be outdone, another state will allow 12 year olds. Then, newborns. Maybe pets after that - I don't know. :lol: But it would be unfair if someone is eligable for one state and not another.

Then, we need to get a system in place to count the votes like you said. Perhaps there could be a provision that says when the voting results are within a certain margin of error, then the election is thrown to the old electoral college.

What happens when a candidate believes they will win the electoral college but is just short of the margin of error (and on the losing side). This is very unlikely, first of all, because the candidate lost the pop vote. This candidate might start a frantic recount/legal battle. There needs to be procedures in place in case this happens, but I'm sure we can do this.
 
Connecticutter said:
First of all, there needs to be a nation-wide standard for voter eligability. This is very important, because suppose no such standard exists. Then, to increase their representation, some state might let 17 year olds vote. Not to be outdone, another state will allow 12 year olds. Then, newborns. Maybe pets after that - I don't know. :lol: But it would be unfair if someone is eligable for one state and not another.
Click to expand...

The federal gov would step in and place a legal voting age.....they would have to becuase the alternative is just as you stated.....you might have stated the extreme; now that I look back on it, but it could happen.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom