• 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
WTF?

They represent the State as an entity, not the people.

The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.
 
Careful young man, you're opening up a bee hive of logical arguments that would make the GOP look pretty stupid.

What you mean how social security's not a tax it's just called that to wiggle around the constitution. Income tax makes up the majorrity of revenues raised for the federal govern ment so literally if you do not pay income tax you don't pay for nearly half of the federal government.
 
The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.
Incorrect.
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.
 
Incorrect.
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.

First of all, the Senate is part of Congress. To say "in both the Senate and the Congress" is factually incorrect. You could say in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The term CONGRESS takes in both of those parts of the national legislative branch.

Secondly, Could you explain to us how that would work exactly? Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent. And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot? And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?
 
well since this is fantasy my dream would be to not have any "parties" but oh well

Direct Vote
4+ candidates minimum (3 separate parties)
2nd place is VP
3rd lace leader of the house

reform House and Senate terms to match

if we still have parties then no majority would be allowed in either house or senate



hopefully by default this FORCES bi-partisanship :shrug:

I like the premise of your ideas here. But Im not sure that a 2nd place winner would work well with the President. I mean they lost for a reason. Just imagine a Bush/Gore or vice versa White house.
What if the 2nd place lost by a landslide of mega proportions? It would be better then for the VP to run on their own in the same fashion as the President.

Also I would have the states vote for the Presidency individually. The voters in each state would vote for the president, then the result would go to Washington as a vote for that candidate. A tie would be determined by a total sum of all the votes in all of the states. This would give every state equal representation.

But I agree with your fantasy of no "parties" because factional representation always is unjust.
 
I find it very disturbing thast so many here question the wisdom of the founders. We are not and never were intended to be a Democracy. Getting rid of the EC would give all the power to the big states. And mostly libs who live there.
 
First of all, the Senate is part of Congress. To say "in both the Senate and the Congress" is factually incorrect. You could say in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The term CONGRESS takes in both of those parts of the national legislative branch.

Secondly, Could you explain to us how that would work exactly? Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent. And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot? And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?

I nominate you for board lawyer.
 
Incorrect.
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.
You are correct.
Constitutionally, politically, legally, conceptually and historically, the people and the states are seperate entities.
 
You are correct.
Constitutionally, politically, legally, conceptually and historically, the people and the states are seperate entities.

And you also are wrong.

Since you agreed with the previous poster Excon when the said this in response to my post that without any people they would not have any votes

Incorrect.
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.

perhaps you would then step up and answer these questions?

Could you explain to us how that would work exactly? Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent. And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot? And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?
 
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).
The theory behind the EC is that it actually balances out populated/unpopulated areas and gives everybody a more equal voice. There is debate on whether the EC actually does accomplish this, though.

I wonder if maybe it did work fairly well back then, but has since outlived its usefulness as times have changed.
 
The theory behind the EC is that it actually balances out populated/unpopulated areas and gives everybody a more equal voice.

I understand what you say, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why should the vote of people who happen to live in less populated areas count more than the vote of a person living in a city? Seems totally arbitrary to me.

For any reason you can find for the importance of the countryside, you can also find a reason for the importance of cities. And why stop there? Why not making the vote of rich people count more than that of poor? Why not that of whites count more than that of blacks? Why not make that of homeowners count more than that of tenants? And so on. You can certainly find similar reasons to justify all of that.

In the end it just violates the rule that the vote of every voter should count the same.
 
I understand what you say, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why should the vote of people who happen to live in less populated areas count more than the vote of a person living in a city? Seems totally arbitrary to me.

For any reason you can find for the importance of the countryside, you can also find a reason for the importance of cities. And why stop there? Why not making the vote of rich people count more than that of poor? Why not that of whites count more than that of blacks? Why not make that of homeowners count more than that of tenants? And so on. You can certainly find similar reasons to justify all of that.

In the end it just violates the rule that the vote of every voter should count the same.
As far as American colonial times, many of those things were happening. Only landowners could vote. Blacks (and women) could not vote. And so on. Much of it was arbitrary, or at least the prevailing thought of the day, and we have mostly evolved beyond that.

As far as the EC... and this is only my interpretation... is that without it Presidential candidates would have stayed in Philadelphia and New York City and Boston, and rarely if ever ventured beyond those three cities. The large cities influenced their state as a whole. People in South Carolina would have never seen or heard a word, possibly until after an election. The EC forced candidates to at least pay some attention to rural states while still retaining some semblance of reasonable proportionate representation.

Again, back then. In today's media and information age, I think a good argument can be made that rural areas get information just fine without the need to see a candidate in the flesh.
 
I understand what you say, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why should the vote of people who happen to live in less populated areas count more than the vote of a person living in a city? Seems totally arbitrary to me.
Not sure that you understand this...
No one's vote counts. No one's. No one has a right to vote for President, and the people do not elect the President.
 
Not sure that you understand this...
No one's vote counts. No one's. No one has a right to vote for President, and the people do not elect the President.

The United States Constitution lists the RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of those words FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES IN FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES passed and ratified by the American people through their legislatures.
 
Could you translate that into English? I can't decipher your meaning.
The last sentence got confused because I added something without changing the words that were dependent on the addition. This is a common occurrence in editing; for example, changing the subject to a plural while keeping a singular verb.

My debating point is similar to refuting the nonsense that if a candidate is against campaign financing, he can express that by not taking it himself. That is a phony alternative because if others are allowed to be financed from special interests, he will lose the election and never be allowed to vote on campaign finance. By going it alone, what Maine is doing is going against the self-interest of its own people by voluntarily sacrificing its political power just to set an example. All proposals have to be looked at as requiring everybody to do it. It is dishonest to charge hypocrisy by asking someone to do it alone, or by pointing out the false choice that any state can do it now. It is a cheap shot and shows ignorance of the reality of the way things work. Maine should be a role model for the country, but not as it is when going it alone. No state should follow Maine's example unless all have to. That is the paradox of reality: You shouldn't be like that unless everybody is like that. What is bad for the individual may be best for all.
 
I understand what you say, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why should the vote of people who happen to live in less populated areas count more than the vote of a person living in a city? Seems totally arbitrary to me.

For any reason you can find for the importance of the countryside, you can also find a reason for the importance of cities. And why stop there? Why not making the vote of rich people count more than that of poor? Why not that of whites count more than that of blacks? Why not make that of homeowners count more than that of tenants? And so on. You can certainly find similar reasons to justify all of that.

In the end it just violates the rule that the vote of every voter should count the same.
It is a trivial unfairness that shouldn't be resented. Otherwise, you can tell people that if they wanted any real power in this country, they should move to the states with the most electoral votes. Your point would only be relevant if all states had the same number of electoral votes.
 
I like the premise of your ideas here. But Im not sure that a 2nd place winner would work well with the President. I mean they lost for a reason. Just imagine a Bush/Gore or vice versa White house.
What if the 2nd place lost by a landslide of mega proportions? It would be better then for the VP to run on their own in the same fashion as the President.

Also I would have the states vote for the Presidency individually. The voters in each state would vote for the president, then the result would go to Washington as a vote for that candidate. A tie would be determined by a total sum of all the votes in all of the states. This would give every state equal representation.

But I agree with your fantasy of no "parties" because factional representation always is unjust.

Thanks

and yes I agree initially it might be a little weird with the 2nd place thing but my thinkin was eventually we would have real candidates and platforms, not such polarizations. And also with a direct vote and the scenerio of 2nd and third place the primaries will really matter also.

just kicking ideas around, not like im anybody that matters lol ;)
 
The United States Constitution lists the RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of those words FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES IN FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES passed and ratified by the American people through their legislatures.


There is no right to vote in the constitution. Only amendments that give reason they cant stop you from voting.
 
There is no right to vote in the constitution. Only amendments that give reason they cant stop you from voting.
There is very clearly no right to vote for President -- your state grants you the privilige to vote on the allocation of electors, something that it is not required to do, and someting that, should your state choose to not grant that privilege, leaves you with no immediate legal recourse.
 
The United States Constitution lists the RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of those words FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES IN FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES passed and ratified by the American people through their legislatures.

No where does it give a citizen the right to vote for president.
 
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?

Direct democracy= majoritarian rule. Bad.
 
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

No where does it give a citizen the right to vote for president.

You are correct. Hopefully the debate about the right to vote generally will go to The Basement.
 
Back
Top Bottom