• 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!

Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    Votes: 41 45.1%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    Votes: 39 42.9%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 11 12.1%

  • Total voters
    91
I'll answer the same as I have every other time this has come up. The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary. No one person's vote should count for more than any other person's.
 
We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.
IOW, you don't like One man, One vote.
You want to continue the DISproportionate power of the Sparser Western RED States.. of course.

This disproportionate power also, and related, weighs on the day-to-day running of our Government through the Senate.
1 Million People in Wyoming have 2 Senators, while 20 Million people in NY have only the same 2 Senators.
20 Million People living in Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc, Totaled together, have far more power than the same number living in one Larger state.
Thus, Laws are made, Judges approved, and money distributed, Unequally in favor of sparser RED States.
 
Last edited:
We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.

Exactly! Founding fathers usually know best!
IMO one man one vote isn't working, and could be reformed to a who pays taxes votes deal... But I'm not so sure we should do that... Just keep it as it s b/c it isn't broken for now... But don't let illegals vote nor felons
 
Last edited:
what you are missing is the loser will always have to do this will they not? what would make them not go else where if they are losing in the pools just like now?

The locations they have not mined in the big states that are blue or red, will be the focus.
 
Exactly! Founding fathers usually know best!
IMO one man one vote isn't working, and could be reformed to a who pays taxes votes deal... But I'm not so sure we should do that... Just keep it as it s b/c it isn't broken for now... But don't let illegals vote nor felons

Years ago on this forum I made a poll asking if those who pay more taxes should get more votes seeing how they are paying for most of the bills. It wasn't a popular idea .
 
Any way you do it, some states are going to be looked over. That's just reality. I think more states will be focused on though through a popular vote method though.

I have to disagree and leave it there.
 
I think it's time to get rid of the EC. A democracy doesn't exist while it's in place. Like others have mentioned, the EC can go against the popular vote and choose a different candidate. No one should be afraid of states with a large population like CA. We can't assume an entire state would vote 100% for a candidate. When you start carving up the country into voting regions, it gives an unfair advantage to some candidates.

A good example of this I witnessed in MI. They re-zoned some voting areas based off where republican and democrat voters lived, effectively giving the voting advantage to either a republican or a democrat for the house/senate. The election commission has the right to do this in every state without voter's approval. Again, this sways the vote for a republican or a democrat and also reduces the risk of a 3rd party winning (although some 3rd party politicians do make it into office).

Getting back to the popular vote topic, it's unfair to segregate voters by EC or by the state itself. Why is it fair that a candidate getting 51% of the popular vote in a state gets ALL the EC votes for that state?

Here's an interesting tidbit of history showing how unfair the EC is versus the popular vote:
The closest the country has ever come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress. The presidential election of 1968 ended with Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to Hubert Humphrey's 191. Yet, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, equating to less than 1% of the national total. George Wallace received the remaining 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote.
Electoral College (United States)
 
The locations they have not mined in the big states that are blue or red, will be the focus.

that doesnt answer my question.

someone said that mitt ignores california because the majority there are going to vote democrat, so why pander to the minority of that state when you can go else where and get the minority?

also if it is such a given that a place like Cali is going to vote democrat, and the minority are going to vote rep why go to them at all, their votes are a given so its better to work the independents would it not be?

I think things would be better and the states/people that get little attention now would get at least the same attention if not MORE attention.

I also think the other effect would be after a couple of elections you would not longer have such a derision between right and left and the lines would blur more.
 
Get rid of it. Outdated, undemocratic, and unfair. Our whole electrical system is just ****ed up and ass backwards in general.
 
The electoral college is founded on the idea that the people who live in a state are all homogeneous with each other. The college is intended to prevent more populous states from imposing their will on the smaller ones. But states don't actually operate that way. Most states are split close to 50/50, and even the most divisive states split closer to 60/40, maybe reaching as far as 70/30. In 1998, GWB won re-election as governor of Texas in a landslide with 69% of the vote. 69% is a landslide. Clearly, Texas is not as uniformly red as some people might think. No state is uniformly one way or another. That's just not how voters work in this country. The problem that the electoral college exists to prevent doesn't actually happen. New York wouldn't have any influence in a presidential election, because New York wouldn't be a prize to be won. Each individual voter in the state would be a unique and separate data point, and some would go one way and some the other. A direct popular vote would make every single vote count the same, since states do not move as homogeneous blocks.



Why do you have so little respect for the majority of the population of your nation? Do you hate the United States that much?

I don't hate I just don't want to be held hostage to the will of the mob. If you think the country needs to be fundamentally transformed amend the constitution or leave.
 
IOW, you don't like One man, One vote.
You want to continue the DISproportionate power of the Sparser Western RED States.. of course.

This disproportionate power also, and related, weighs on the day-to-day running of our Government through the Senate.
1 Million People in Wyoming have 2 Senators, while 20 Million people in NY have only the same 2 Senators.
20 Million People living in Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc, Totaled together, have far more power than the same number living in one Larger state.
Thus, Laws are made, Judges approved, and money distributed, Unequally in favor of sparser RED States.

And bigger states dominate the House.
 
I'll answer the same as I have every other time this has come up. The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary. No one person's vote should count for more than any other person's.
Good news :
In the current system, every vote cast by the general public counts exactly the same: Exactly zero.
 
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

They are already able to do this. California gets 50-something votes while Nebraska gets 2. If you were arguing for a system where each state got equal votes you'd be on the right track.

Say what??
 
And bigger states dominate the House.
Of course, but that is per capita/PROPORTIONAL/Fair representation.

What a non sequitur reply.
 
We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.

Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?

Absolutely excellent question! And someone should educate all the voting mob that the only thing, narrow and weak it may be, that stands between their (group) rights and just being trampled over is that little Electoral College, with its Delegates. A uniquely intelligent system, uniquely American, and uniquely above every democracy that world history ever produced. Cherish it everyone while you can. When it will be gone, then you can as well be Chinese or Russian or Gypsy.
 
Of course, but that is per capita/PROPORTIONAL/Fair representation.

What a non sequitur reply.

We prefer our disproportional representation in one body, hence my reply. You call it fair to do otherwise, we do not.
 
We prefer our disproportional representation in one body, hence my reply. You call it fair to do otherwise, we do not.
You have a Logic problem. (to be kind)

Because one body has Fair per capita representation, it does NOT follow that it is 'balanced' by another that isn't fair!

What can one say to this fallacious theory, now repeated Twice.
 
We do not consider it to be fair that affairs be dictated and commanded by those of larger populations at the expense of many of us who are not more populated. Your democratic summations need to be counterbalanced to ensure fairness.
 
We do not consider it to be fair that affairs be dictated and commanded by those of larger populations at the expense of many of us who are not more populated. Your democratic summations need to be counterbalanced to ensure fairness.
ANOTHER Logic-challenged/Deficient post.
Note the Faux Persecution complex as a deflection from Logic Collapse.

With one man-one vote, one man-one rep... no one is "dictated to" and representation is proportional and fair.
As it stands now, ie, 4 Western states with a total of 10 million people and 8 Senators can "dictate" to a large state like NY with Twice as many people but Only 2 Senators.
And I could make an even more egregious case than that.

Your posts are intentionally obtuse... I hope.
Or perhaps just self-interested/Partisan-Warp.
In any case, you've been ripped well enough for everyone to understand now.
Last-word away but it's game over and been so for several posts now.
bye.
 
Last edited:
Enough with the cheap logic ploys. Your use of logic is a convenient smokescreen for your belief democracy is a virtue at all times. Step back and read some of your own political history, please. For starters, hit the Federalist Papers.
 
Last edited:
We do not consider it to be fair that affairs be dictated and commanded by those of larger populations at the expense of many of us who are not more populated. Your democratic summations need to be counterbalanced to ensure fairness.

North Dakota has zero power in the current presidential election. Its has a tiny number of electoral votes and always votes Republican. Nobody will spend any money or assign pork projects to try and woo voters. The idea that the electoral college somehow protects the interests of smaller states has no basis in reality. All it really does give disproportionate influence to medium/large sized states with closely matched voters. The senate actually gives you an equal voice, the EC simply favors Ohio and Florida.
 
North Dakota has zero power in the current presidential election. Its has a tiny number of electoral votes and always votes Republican. Nobody will spend any money or assign pork projects to try and woo voters. The idea that the electoral college somehow protects the interests of smaller states has no basis in reality. All it really does give disproportionate influence to medium/large sized states with closely matched voters. The senate actually gives you an equal voice, the EC simply favors Ohio and Florida.

You must not have been around in 2008, or during the primary season.
 
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?
No, I am for elected colleges. It is the democratic way.
 
You must not have been around in 2008, or during the primary season.

Don't kid yourself. North Dakota has 3 electoral votes and hasn't voted democrat since Lydon Johnson took office. Nobody is going to invest resources on a forgone conclusion for that few votes. ND had 500k in campaign ads during the 2008 election, which is less than 1 dollar for each person living in the state. A swing state like Nevada was getting 5 dollars per person. The electoral college doesn't benefit small states.
 
Back
Top Bottom