Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Electoral college

    The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
    eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

    This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

    As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

    For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Electoral college

    This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Electoral college

    I say, we go to a duel presidency. Where each president gets to control a certain % of the gov reflective of % of the population that voted for them.
    Compromise is great!
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK View Post
    The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
    eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

    This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

    As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

    For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.


    Being a "life is supposed to be fair isn't it, kinda guy", I love the idea of the popular vote is it, period. Then reality sets in, and I see the HUGE (at least to me) % of the population that are considerably more concerned what Kim and Kanye are doing than who the next member of the supreme court will be (for instance). So, with reservations, I would rather keep what we have now, than go straight popular vote. In my lifetime the electoral college has picked the president over the popular vote twice.
    Both times America "won" (given the poor choices offered in each of those elections). And even though, I did NOT want a Trump president (and didn't vote for him), the electoral college was perfectly correct not to elect Hillary.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Electoral college

    To make any change at all requires a constitutional amendment. Getting that ratified is difficult. So if we are going to go to that much trouble, we should fix other flaws with elections at the same time we eliminate the electoral college.

    My favorites flaws to fix include:

    1. The 2000 and 2016 elections left a large fraction of the country to believe that their side was cheated. To prevent that, I would establish a minimum percent margin of victory, say 5%. If the popular vote margin is less than 5%, then a second election will be held ASAP. But the second election eliminates all but the top two vote winners. If the second election is within 5%, then we have a 3rd, 4th etc.

    2 Primary elections must be open to all voters, including independents.

    3. Primaries will not recognize political parties. All voters vote in the same primary, and all states are required to hold primaries. The top 4 (or 5 or whatever) vote winners in the primary become the candidates, regardless of party affiliation. In other words, we should eliminate any special legal status for political parties.

    4. The office of Vice President is ridiculous. Eliminate it. In case the President dies, the #2 vote winner in the general election takes over. For example, in 2017 if Trump dies or becomes disabled, then Clinton would take over. Then if Clinton died the #3 vote winner, Gary Johnson would take over, and so on. An argument against this would be that assassination becomes more attractive. To reduce the risk, death or disablement of the President results in a new primary elections within 30 days and a new general election in 45 says, so the person taking over is in power for only 45 days.

  6. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  7. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK View Post
    The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
    eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

    This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

    As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

    For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

    1. Changing to "electoral points" would require a revision to the constitution which won't happen. Electoral votes are actual voters, so they cannot be broken down into fractions.
    2. States are free to appropriate electoral votes proportionately, and some states do this. Each state must decide what is in its own best interests. If a state with three electoral votes decides to use proportional allocation, then they have effectively made themselves irrelevant. Why would any politician spend money where at best he can earn one more electoral point than his opponent (assuming nearly every state will cast a minimum of about 1/3 of its votes for either candidate. Small states like New Hampshire and Iowa would get no play at a

    All this hand wringing over the electoral college is just goofy and largely based on hysterics. The system was devised as a compromise between the large and small states. Yes, slavery was an issue during the day, but the compromise made is unrelated to slavery itself. In other words, if slavery was not the issue, then it would undoubtedly be some other economic issue which the smaller states would have felt threatened by. So, today, in a U.S. without slavery, there is still a compromise between large and small states. It is why each state only gets two senators. What??? You mean every person's vote is not given the same weight in our Senatorial body? So, big states get more electoral votes, but it is capped so that small states still have a say. Lost in all this is that the U.S.A. is an acronym for the United States of America. States are, themselves, largely independent governments. Replacing the electoral college with some version of direct voting effectively makes us the United People of America which would quickly devolve into the Discombobulated People of America.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. Likes MindTrap028, Squatch347 liked this post
  9. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Lost in all this is that the U.S.A. is an acronym for the United States of America. States are, themselves, largely independent governments. Replacing the electoral college with some version of direct voting effectively makes us the United People of America which would quickly devolve into the Discombobulated People of America.
    I vote for "The American peoples front".
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Why I dislike the electoral college
    By Meng Bomin in forum Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 06:04 PM
  2. Abolish The Electoral College!
    By Castle in forum Politics
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: May 6th, 2007, 05:04 PM
  3. The electoral college should be abolished.
    By Andacanavar in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 13th, 2005, 11:38 AM
  4. Electoral College
    By JOEBIALEK in forum Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 21st, 2005, 02:59 PM
  5. Electoral College
    By KneeLess in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 11th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •