• 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!

What are your opinions on the electoral college..

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I know there are reasons for it and reasons against it but I can't help but ask why bother voting in a presidential election if I am in Alabama? My vote truly is worthless since I'm a Democrat and we all know how the majority in Bama will vote.

So for that reason I feel like I'm against it, your thoughts?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know there are reasons for it and reasons against it but I can't help but ask why bother voting in a presidential election if I am in Alabama? My vote truly is worthless since I'm a Democrat and we all know how the majority in Bama will vote.

So for that reason I feel like I'm against it, your thoughts?

I'm not against the Electoral College, but I am for reform of the Electoral College.

I'd prefer that the Congressional District Method, aka the Maine-Nebraska Method, be implemented nationwide. A link can be found here:

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

mvymvy

Active member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
316
Reaction score
42
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention , while two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
 

mvymvy

Active member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
316
Reaction score
42
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So you're all for endless legal appeals on a national level when it comes to the Presidential election?
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I say leave it alone.

To the OP: Too bad you feel that your vote is meaningless; just consider how a republican in New York feels!
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'd remove the slate system used in most of the states which also removes the winner take all scenario. Originally, the electoral college was a vote for a specific elector done by the people regardless of party affiliation. This way a party will not be able to take all of the votes. I'd also remove that the slate has to vote along party lines as it's currently done. Yes, this will result in closer races, but it's better this way since it enables the candidates for president to see what each state wants.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The only way to make each vote count, is to get rid of the electoral college, and make the popular vote the deciding factor in the election.
 

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There's no reason not to go with the national popular vote. Give the election a three week window. Everyone votes by computer. Those who don't own one vote in their current polling location, with the same ID requirements. They already swipe the magnetic strip on my Driver's License to ID me.

The winner is 50% plus one or more.

It is way past time for having truly one person, one vote and it is possible thru e-vote now.

Regards from Rosie
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's no reason not to go with the national popular vote. Give the election a three week window. Everyone votes by computer.

Do you know how easy it is to falsify computer records? Especially with regards to voting?

Those who don't own one vote in their current polling location, with the same ID requirements. They already swipe the magnetic strip on my Driver's License to ID me.

The winner is 50% plus one or more.

And what if there are 3 candidates running, and one gets 25% of the votes, another gets 30% of the vote, and another gets 45% of the votes?

It is way past time for having truly one person, one vote and it is possible thru e-vote now.

That will also make it time for lawyers to contest elections on a national level each and every presidential election, and for hackers to screw with those elections.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The only way to make each vote count, is to get rid of the electoral college, and make the popular vote the deciding factor in the election.



Pandora's Box 101
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,403
Reaction score
5,004
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm not a fan of it, and I think it should be gotten rid of. It gives people living in low-population states more of a voice in the elections, and that's not fair. It's also a major factor in keeping us tied to a two-party system.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,882
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I like it-this country was never intended to be a pure democracy and I like that . I also would get rid of the 17th amendment as well to restore some of the balance between the states and the very growing and greedy federal government
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not a fan of it, and I think it should be gotten rid of. It gives people living in low-population states more of a voice in the elections, and that's not fair. It's also a major factor in keeping us tied to a two-party system.

The electoral system has nothing to do with keeping us tied to a two-party system. What keeps us tied to a two-party system is plurality voting. This is Duverger's Law and is a matter of science and statistics.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, the Constitution says that the indivdiual states are allowed to choose the method in which their electoral votes are distributed. That means rather than having the trouble of doing a national method of election, which nobody will agree to, the states are allowed to do electoral systems that they choose, which is easier to pass because there are fewer interests involved. This is why even though most states give all their electoral votes to the winner, there are some alternate systems, such as Maine and Nebraska doing the Congressional District Method and one state, Hawaii I believe, passed a law saying that their electoral votes will go to whichever candidate wins the national election.

It's just easier to do things on a state-by-state basis than at a national level because of the legal and bureaucratic challenges involved.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I like it-this country was never intended to be a pure democracy and I like that . I also would get rid of the 17th amendment as well to restore some of the balance between the states and the very growing and greedy federal government

It wouldn't restore balance between the states. It would just give more power to the greedy state governments. There'd also be crises of representation when the state legislatures would block and deadlock appointments to Senators. Popular election of Senators didn't happen because the federal government pushed it or the citizens of states wanted to give more power to the federal government - popular election of Senators passed because state legislatures became inept due to partisan politics. This would be worse rather than better if the 17th were repealed.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,882
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It wouldn't restore balance between the states. It would just give more power to the greedy state governments. There'd also be crises of representation when the state legislatures would block and deadlock appointments to Senators. Popular election of Senators didn't happen because the federal government pushed it or the citizens of states wanted to give more power to the federal government - popular election of Senators passed because state legislatures became inept due to partisan politics. This would be worse rather than better if the 17th were repealed.

the current system makes senators the whores of special interests.
 

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
the current system makes senators the whores of special interests.

And whatever way the votes are cast, it is only thru the full and fair counting of the popular vote and the abolishment of the Electorial College that insure the elected are responsive to only the electorate. Our representatives are supposed to allow the rule of the people solely, not the rule of the almighty campaign contribution.

Take a picture, because you'll rarely find me agreeing with rightists, but the rightists are correct in advocating popular vote only.

Regards from Rosie
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
the current system makes senators the whores of special interests.

And repealing the 17th will lead to a system that makes Senators the whores of special interests. Only the people will have even less of a chance to kick them out since they have the state legislature as a buffer.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,882
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And whatever way the votes are cast, it is only thru the full and fair counting of the popular vote and the abolishment of the Electorial College that insure the elected are responsive to only the electorate. Our representatives are supposed to allow the rule of the people solely, not the rule of the almighty campaign contribution.

Take a picture, because you'll rarely find me agreeing with rightists, but the rightists are correct in advocating popular vote only.

Regards from Rosie
most conservatives understand the value of the electoral college. having politicians pandering to the most populated states is not good IMHO
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,882
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And repealing the 17th will lead to a system that makes Senators the whores of special interests. Only the people will have even less of a chance to kick them out since they have the state legislature as a buffer.

I like the fact that the congress was supposed to be directly elected and the senate by the state. I tend to believe the founders had more wisdom than those who wanted to change the nature of the balance between federal and state power.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I like the fact that the congress was supposed to be directly elected and the senate by the state. I tend to believe the founders had more wisdom than those who wanted to change the nature of the balance between federal and state power.

Well, you're wrong. The Constitution was amended because partisans in the sate legislature was ****ing up the balance between the federal and state power by using filibusters in the state senates to prevent candidates from being appointed to the Senate. Because of this, the Senate was passing bills without some states being represented.

State governments are often no better than the federal government. In fact, they're often worse because they get less scrutiny by the press. We need more functions for direct democracy in the federal government, not less. Less power to the people will lead only to more corruption, not less, as the people will have fewer recourses to get rid of it.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,882
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, you're wrong. The Constitution was amended because partisans in the sate legislature was ****ing up the balance between the federal and state power by using filibusters in the state senates to prevent candidates from being appointed to the Senate. Because of this, the Senate was passing bills without some states being represented.

State governments are often no better than the federal government. In fact, they're often worse because they get less scrutiny by the press. We need more functions for direct democracy in the federal government, not less. Less power to the people will lead only to more corruption, not less, as the people will have fewer recourses to get rid of it.

I am wrong-LOL your opinion does not trump my opinion. and the reason for that does not overcome the reason for the original system

try again.

we need less direct democracy. right now we have way too much representation without taxation. people with no skin in the game have way too much say.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am wrong-LOL your opinion does not trump my opinion. and the reason for that does not overcome the reason for the original system

try again.

we need less direct democracy. right now we have way too much representation without taxation. people with no skin in the game have way too much say.

My opinion is not opinion. Everything I said was fact. There was a reason why the 17th Amendment was passed. It was because the way it was being done before then was causing ineffectual governing. The people got tired of it and they made changes to the Constitution to address it. It now works better - Senators get elected despite the partisan obstructionism of state legislatures. Now you can ignore that or dismiss that if you want, but the point still stands.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,882
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
My opinion is not opinion. Everything I said was fact. There was a reason why the 17th Amendment was passed. It was because the way it was being done before then was causing ineffectual governing. The people got tired of it and they made changes to the Constitution to address it. It now works better - Senators get elected despite the partisan obstructionism of state legislatures. Now you can ignore that or dismiss that if you want, but the point still stands.

my opinion is not opinion? OK

and while you may be right about why it was passed that doesn't mean I need to agree to it or I cannot point out that it has caused more problems than it fixed-same with the 16th amendment.

I doubt most people understood things. I also note that if people could have seen what has happened in the 100 or so years that it was passed (same with the 16th) they would never had allowed this nonsense to take place. same with the social security ponzi scheme.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And whatever way the votes are cast, it is only thru the full and fair counting of the popular vote and the abolishment of the Electorial College that insure the elected are responsive to only the electorate. Our representatives are supposed to allow the rule of the people solely, not the rule of the almighty campaign contribution.

Take a picture, because you'll rarely find me agreeing with rightists, but the rightists are correct in advocating popular vote only.

Regards from Rosie

Sounds to me like someone is still a little bitter about the Al Gore 2000 election debocle, LOL.
 
Top Bottom