Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Scrap the Electoral College

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,820
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

But the Founders were scared of majority rule :(
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate

So you are against the Electoral College, but you think that you disagree with 1harder?

Cyanide?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 2:07:23 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:16:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But the Founders were scared of majority rule :(

I'm really tired of speaking of the founders like every single one of them were god-sent masters of reason and foretelling.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,820
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 2:11:31 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 2:07:23 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:16:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But the Founders were scared of majority rule :(

I'm really tired of speaking of the founders like every single one of them were god-sent masters of reason and foretelling.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:22:43 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
The founding fathers had a problem getting all the states to agree on anything. The electoral system made it possible for states with small populations to take part in choosing the president.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:10:50 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Look, Trump won by only a few percent, in the states he needed to win. The democrats would have won if they had a nominee people wanted to vote for.
Somehow the only candidates the dems had were Clinton's wife and this old Jew who was a socialist.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 10:04:14 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

It's pointless to talk about, because it will never change. The flyover states are never going to vote to disenfranchise themselves, and you need 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 10:16:31 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate

Harder said exactly the same thing, and you sound like you're disagreeing with him.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 1:03:14 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

It made sense for the founders back then to support the electoral collage. Back then, it was incredibly hard for the country to count all the votes and report them, since transportation was hard. The fathers then elected a elector to represent each state who would report the vote count in Washington D.C.

Anyways you make good points, and I agree with you, but I think there would still be issues with the popular vote

If we go with the popular vote, bigger densely populated places would get more attention from the candidates than rural places. Why? because they will give them more votes. The point was the EC was to help equally represent each state to prevent politicians from focusing on just certain regions with large populations.

I posted a solution on facebook, so I thought you might be interested.

=Quoted from my Facebook=


"So I know that people are angry at the way the electoral collage works. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton lost the election despite more people voting for her than Donald Trump.

This may seem frustrating, but keep in mind that if we did do this by popular vote, then Democrat and Republican politicians will only campaign in densely populated cities, and ignore everybody else, since they will get the most votes in these places. However, the problem arises over voter turnouts and battleground states. As a Democrat voter in Texas or a Republican voter in California, you have 0 incentive to vote, because your state will most likely turn blue or red anyways.

I'm not sure if this a good solution, but I thought about doing the electoral collage a bit differently.

For example...
We know that California has 55 electors, and in the election, Hillary Clinton received 62% of the vote compared to Trump's 33%. Why not make it in such a way that Clinton would get 62% of the 55 electors (34 electors) and Trump gets 20 electors? This way we still allow states to be equally represented and encourage people to vote.
Not sure if this is possible, but just an idea..."
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 3:09:01 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate

There is a sense in which we are a democracy, I won't deny that.
However, we don't get to vote on national laws - representative government.
We don't get to vote on how our money is spent - representative government.

When it comes to governing, we are a representative republic, not a democracy.
"Accuracy" (whatever that might mean), is not a goal, or expectation.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 10:16:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate

Harder said exactly the same thing, and you sound like you're disagreeing with him.

He did not say the exact same thing. His points were preventing elites from meddling, not going to House of Reps, and increasing voter turnout. My above argument had nothing to do with any of them. I don't see how I'm disagreeing with him either since I'm just adding another reason, which I find the most compelling reason, since democracy is the highest value here.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:35:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:09:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate

There is a sense in which we are a democracy, I won't deny that.
However, we don't get to vote on national laws - representative government.
We don't get to vote on how our money is spent - representative government.

When it comes to governing, we are a representative republic, not a democracy.
"Accuracy" (whatever that might mean), is not a goal, or expectation.

No. We are not a direct democracy like Athens as that would be insane given our population, so we have a democratic republic. But this is still democratic in that the representatives are selected via the public's choosing. But states still have the population vote on propositions, and referendums happen.

But even regardless of that, why should we not strive for accuracy? There is no negative side affect of accuracy, and it can only do good by becoming more democratic. And your point about a republic is irrelevent here since presidents are democratically elected, making "representation" irrelevent. There is no negative to being more accurate thus no reason to not strive for it
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:48:07 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:26:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

All those are fine, but in the end it just isnt as good as popular vote. In electoral college 100,000 people equal 1 vote, so if a candidate takes a state the candidate takes all the electoral votes which, democratically represents 100% of the population and represents, for example, 800,000 votes for a candidate. But in reality the state was 54% to 46%, which democratically, should be 54% of 800,000. Its undemocratic since it misrepresents peoples votes through the winner takes all and even if it is changed makes it less accurate since it sums it to 100,000 rather than specifically 134,824 or whatever. Popular vote is more democratic and accurate

So you are against the Electoral College, but you think that you disagree with 1harder?

Cyanide?

When did I say I disagree with Harder? I didn't. I just added the most important argument against EC in addition to his since democracy is highest value
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 5:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 8:12:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't give a sh!t that the EC is not in alignment this year, but I have multiple reasons for ending the Electoral College:

1. Preventing elites from meddling with democracy

It might not ever happen - but that doesn't mean it can't. Faithless electors should not have a place in determining the President that ought to be of the people's will.

2. Preventing a House of Representatives election selecting a less supported candidate

Again, meddling with the stronger democratic preference.

3. Ending the Electoral College would increase turnout (main reason)

In "safe states", such as California, Texas, the Bible Belt, etc - the Electoral College being bound to award a winner-take-all vote to a candidate of the dominant party leads to people staying home - because literally nothing they do can change the result in a state like Wyoming. This leads to candidates not caring about these states, and spending all of their time campaigning in the swing states. This leads to an unbalance of power between people in safe states and swing states, depresses turnout in safe states, and allows for parties to neglect a large portion of the country. Getting more people to vote is paramount to having the people's voice heard in the election of the most powerful person on Earth - and this country's turnout is pretty poor.

The EC was created for situations like this. If the EC does not deny Trump the presidency (at least my sending the decision to congress), there is no purpose for it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 8:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Most of the critiques against the EC are quite circular in that they assume that if the popular vote is not expressed in the winner of the EC that the latter has made some error, and use that to argue against the EC. And yet, to take that as the standard is to assume the only question at issue. To the extent that you accept the argument, no argument should have been necessary to persuade you. That's not to say that the EC is the better system. On the one hand it punishes candidates who draw their support too heavily from geographically concentrated populations, but there are plenty of downsides as well