• 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

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
"My way or the highway" is all that means. If you think that your fellow Americans are just a mob, then you are the one who doesn't belong here.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I never understood this argument, because it works the other way too: Like it is now, the small, sparsely populated states and their countryside voters "screw" the rest of the country (especially those living in the larger cities).
As long as the more populous states don't feel screwed by this, then the disproportionate power of the less populous states is paradoxically endorsed by the absolute rule of the majority. People want to have the option of moving there or vacationing there. Besides, we get most of our food and minerals from the less populated areas, so it's in the interest of the majority to give them more services than they would deserve if we were only going by the numbers, by quantity rather than quality.
 

274ina

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
641
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
and all barriors to 3 parties need to be removed.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Discussing the Electoral College in the context of how much campaign money spent in each state is the most irrelevant argument against.

Also, saying that a state "always" votes one way or the other is short sighted. A state voting the same way 5 elections in a row doesn't mean "always."

I'm against full direct popular vote and it isn't happening anyway because the Constitution would have to be changed. Also, a recount could be a major fiasco.

The effort to block vote states is a horrible idea. A majority of the citizens in one state could vote for candidate A while the block forces an electoral vote for Candidate B.

What is done in Maine and Nebraska is a very legitimate alternative and Constitutionally valid. Here in PA, the republicans brought it up in the State House, but the Democrats shut it down. They didn't want Obama possibly losing electoral votes with some districts likely voting for the R candidate.
That's why it has to be a national law. Maine's alternative is not legitimate because it goes against its own best interests to lose part of its electoral power, so, if everybody doesn't do it, even Maine's enfranchised non-winners lose because they will have to suffer under the state's voluntarily less influence. On a national referendum, the phony alternative of noble self-sacrifice while the less patriotic benefit is not the resulting situation.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not sure what you mean. The Constitution provides a voice for both the people and the states in the federal government, and was amended to provide a greater voice at the expense of the states.
It doesn't provide a voice, it only provides a whisper.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Giving it thought, it should be on a Congressional district level, not purely democratic. But not this "key states and no one else matters" BS.
Then you have the same problem of your vote not counting if your district is overwhelmingly on the other side, This is a national election, so it should be regulated from a national viewpoint.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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?
On top of keeping the electoral college, we should also be requiring a competency test for voters.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Not just a compromise, but The Great Compromise.

I thought that was about the bicameral legislature and one being population based and the other being equal among the states.

and all barriors to 3 parties need to be removed.

That would require public financing of elections.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In what regard?
Being locked inside the Constitutional Convention and debating in secret, the Federalists paid as little attention to the voice of the people outside as they would have to a whisper in a dust storm.
 
Last edited:

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The mob is made up of other Americans, whose will you apparently can't stand. Since they're the majority of this nation, they are the character of this country, not you. The only people who have to fear the mob are those who make their way by trampling on them.
What would you call the proposition in California that is allowing people to vote an increase on others taxes?
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That would require public financing of elections.

I'm fine with that, in fact, I'd like to see an end to all individual or corporate financial contributions to any single candidate. If someone wants to give money to the political process, they can do so, it goes into a central fund and it is distributed to all of the qualifying candidates on a regular basis. People are prohibited from giving money to a specific candidate and candidates are prohibited from spending a penny of their own money. We need to end the election buying in this country.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What would you call the proposition in California that is allowing people to vote an increase on others taxes?

An every-day occurrence? At least one of those ends up on every ballot in California.
 

USNationalist

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
61
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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?

A direct democracy will not solve the problem, because the candidates you see on the menu are put their by Plutocrats. You have to control the process by which a person comes to be known as a presidential candidate to achieve a true sense of direct democracy. Just as electorates have representative power, so does the dollar bill, but the dollar bill has more power because a dollar bill puts the candidate on the American menu. You buy into the plutocrats candidate because no one else seems to exist because no one has the money to advertise at that level but the Plutocrats.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Democracy.

The problem is, you have people who pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever, voting to raise the taxes of others so they can benefit from the increased government revenues.

If you're not going to be affected by the taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote for them.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The problem is, you have people who pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever, voting to raise the taxes of others so they can benefit from the increased government revenues.

If you're not going to be affected by the taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote for them.

Everyone is affected by everything our government does. And no one pays no taxes, but the people who are paying no federal income tax is because they're either exempt like service members, or are poor. Poor people have a lot of interest in how the government works, since it is failing them. Everyone has a say in the tax systems of this country because everyone is subject to it. Are you really suggesting that an increase on the marginal rates should only be voted on by millionaires? Should only prisoners get to vote on laws about prisons? Every single citizen of this country has a say in how it is run, and should have the same weight carried by their voice.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

That's why it has to be a national law. Maine's alternative is not legitimate because it goes against its own best interests to lose part of its electoral power, so, if everybody doesn't do it, even Maine's enfranchised non-winners lose because they will have to suffer under the state's voluntarily less influence. On a national referendum, the phony alternative of noble self-sacrifice while the less patriotic benefit is not the resulting situation.

Could you translate that into English? I can't decipher your meaning.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

Then you have the same problem of your vote not counting if your district is overwhelmingly on the other side, This is a national election, so it should be regulated from a national viewpoint.

This I understand. By your logic going the other way, you can always be on the losing side but with no way to escape. If you are an R in California or a D in Texas, you can always move to another state to be around like minded people. With Maine/Nebraska model, you might only have to move to another district.

Aside from that, they are national offices ( president and VP) but not national elections. That is why tie breakers go to the House and Senate respectively. Interesting that the House only gives 1 vote for the whole state.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Everyone is affected by everything our government does. And no one pays no taxes, but the people who are paying no federal income tax is because they're either exempt like service members, or are poor. Poor people have a lot of interest in how the government works, since it is failing them. Everyone has a say in the tax systems of this country because everyone is subject to it. Are you really suggesting that an increase on the marginal rates should only be voted on by millionaires? Should only prisoners get to vote on laws about prisons? Every single citizen of this country has a say in how it is run, and should have the same weight carried by their voice.

That's horse crap. The only people failing the poor are the poor. Voters are notorious for voting to increase taxes on things they are not affected by. Tax the smokers. Tax the wealthy. Tax anyone else so that you, yourself, don't have to actually pay a penny to support the cause you supposedly support. It's amazingly easy to take money from someone else and give it to your pet cause. It's not so easy when voting to tax yourself to fund something you pretend is important to you.
 

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Everyone is affected by everything our government does. And no one pays no taxes, but the people who are paying no federal income tax is because they're either exempt like service members, or are poor. Poor people have a lot of interest in how the government works, since it is failing them. Everyone has a say in the tax systems of this country because everyone is subject to it. Are you really suggesting that an increase on the marginal rates should only be voted on by millionaires? Should only prisoners get to vote on laws about prisons? Every single citizen of this country has a say in how it is run, and should have the same weight carried by their voice.
If you get more from government than you pay in you are not paying taxes
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
If you get more from government than you pay in you are not paying taxes

Then no one is. Especially not the billionaires who made their fortunes via government contracts, especially for the military, or companies that took advantage of opportunities presented by the government. Halliburton has certainly made more off of its government contracts than it has paid in taxes. The leaders of that company shouldn't be able to vote about taxes then, right?

Also, this thread is not about taxes, but rather the direct election of the president. Try to stay on the ball.
 

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then no one is. Especially not the billionaires who made their fortunes via government contracts, especially for the military, or companies that took advantage of opportunities presented by the government. Halliburton has certainly made more off of its government contracts than it has paid in taxes. The leaders of that company shouldn't be able to vote about taxes then, right?

Also, this thread is not about taxes, but rather the direct election of the president. Try to stay on the ball.

You know most successful companies aren't involved with government contracts, right? Sure, some are, but most are not.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
58,564
Reaction score
25,860
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you get more from government than you pay in you are not paying taxes

Careful young man, you're opening up a bee hive of logical arguments that would make the GOP look pretty stupid.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?

Seeing that the presidential election should be the least important and that congressional elections the most important.
I don't see the need for any change.
 
Top Bottom