Is It time to Abolish the Electoral College?
- What is the Electoral College?
- Why was it put in place?
- Is it fair to the people?
- Is slavery over or just the sight of it?
- Is Mr. Trump legit?
- What does it takes to change the Electoral College?
- What case can you make for its abolishment, other than, it's the current law?
- What case will you make against it to make the elected President reflective of the Popular Vote (will of the people)?
Old topic, fresh needs. Whose side are you own? CM
Comments
-
- Self-explanatory
- To keep a few cities (or larger states) from reigning the country.
- Yes for the reason listed above, it protects the small areas of the country.
- What in the world does this have to do with anything?
- What does this have to do with the topic? That being said, yes, he is the duly elected president of a free and open election.
- Changing the Constitution.
- None, it is a necessary protection.
- None
-
CM asked: 1. What is the Electoral College?
Reformed said: Self-explanatoryCM asked: 2. Why was it put in place?
Reformed said: To keep a few cities (or larger states) from reigning the country.CM asked: 3. Is it fair to the people?
Reformed said: Yes for the reason listed above, it protects the small areas of the country.CM asked: 4. Is slavery over or just the sight of it?
Reformed said: What in the world does this have to do with anything?CM asked: 5. Is Mr. Trump legit?
Reformed said: What does this have to do with the topic? That being said, yes, he is the duly elected president of a free and open election.CM asked: 6. What does it takes to change the Electoral College?
Reformed said: Changing the Constitution.CM asked: 7. What case can you make for its abolishment, other than, it's the current law?
Reformed said: None, it is a necessary protection.CM asked: 8. What case will you make against it to make the elected President reflective of the Popular Vote (will of the people)?
Reformed said: NoneReformed, you don't see a connection between questions # 1 and # 4? Check the history books. Please clarify:
Reformed said: To keep a few cities (or larger states) from reigning the country.
Do you mean:
1. "Reigning"-- "occupying the throne; ruling"? or
2. Ruining -- "reduce to a state of decay, collapse, or disintegration"?There seem to be something inherently wrong, if not, unfair with this system. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
CM asked: 1. What is the Electoral College?
Reformed said: Self-explanatoryCM asked: 2. Why was it put in place?
Reformed said: To keep a few cities (or larger states) from reigning the country.CM asked: 3. Is it fair to the people?
Reformed said: Yes for the reason listed above, it protects the small areas of the country.CM asked: 4. Is slavery over or just the sight of it?
Reformed said: What in the world does this have to do with anything?CM asked: 5. Is Mr. Trump legit?
Reformed said: What does this have to do with the topic? That being said, yes, he is the duly elected president of a free and open election.CM asked: 6. What does it takes to change the Electoral College?
Reformed said: Changing the Constitution.CM asked: 7. What case can you make for its abolishment, other than, it's the current law?
Reformed said: None, it is a necessary protection.CM asked: 8. What case will you make against it to make the elected President reflective of the Popular Vote (will of the people)?
Reformed said: NoneReformed, you don't see a connection between questions # 1 and # 4? Check the history books. Please clarify:
Reformed said: To keep a few cities (or larger states) from reigning the country.
Do you mean:
1. "Reigning"-- "occupying the throne; ruling"? or
2. Ruining -- "reduce to a state of decay, collapse, or disintegration"?There seem to be something inherently wrong, if not, unfair with this system. CM
Ruling. What seems wrong with the system? Do you think California and New York should decide who gets to be President? Or do you think that the little states should get a fair shot as well?
-
@reformed said:
Ruling. What seems wrong with the system? Do you think California and New York should decide who gets to be President? Or do you think that the little states should get a fair shot as well?
Wyoming has approximately 0.2% of the country's population, yet has approximately 0.6% of the electoral college's votes. That is, the voters of Wyoming have approximately 200% more representation in the electoral college than their state's population deserves. When electing the president of the United States, why should the voters of Wyoming or any other state have three times as much representation than their population deserves?
California has approximately 12% of the country's population, yet has approximately 10% of the electoral college's votes. That is, the voters of California have approximately 83% of the representation in the electoral college that their state's population deserves. Why should the voters of California only have 80+% of their due electoral college representation, while voters in other states have as much as 200% of their representation?
In state gubernatorial races, there are no special protections for rural or small-population areas. The state of New York, for example, has decidedly rural, Republican-leaning areas outside its metropolitan areas. Yet voters of those areas are not afforded special consideration; their votes count as much, but not more than, anyone else's in the state.
I know of no other elective office in the country whose eligible voters receive disproportionate representation in the process by which its winner is chosen. Can you name one, reformed?
Why should voters of large population states be penalized in presidential elections (their votes do not have due representation in the electoral college)? Why shouldn't their votes have the exact same representation in the electoral process by which presidents are chosen as do the votes of every other voter in the country, just as the vote of every person in a gubernatorial election has exactly the same representation? And isn't the only way to insure that every voter in a presidential election has the same representation in the electoral process to decide the winner of the presidency by counting the national popular vote?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Ruling. What seems wrong with the system? Do you think California and New York should decide who gets to be President? Or do you think that the little states should get a fair shot as well?
Wyoming has approximately 0.2% of the country's population, yet has approximately 0.6% of the electoral college's votes. That is, the voters of Wyoming have approximately 200% more representation in the electoral college than their state's population deserves. When electing the president of the United States, why should the voters of Wyoming or any other state have three times as much representation than their population deserves?
California has approximately 12% of the country's population, yet has approximately 10% of the electoral college's votes. That is, the voters of California have approximately 83% of the representation in the electoral college that their state's population deserves. Why should the voters of California only have 80+% of their due electoral college representation, while voters in other states have as much as 200% of their representation?
In state gubernatorial races, there are no special protections for rural or small-population areas. The state of New York, for example, has decidedly rural, Republican-leaning areas outside its metropolitan areas. Yet voters of those areas are not afforded special consideration; their votes count as much, but not more than, anyone else's in the state.
I know of no other elective office in the country whose eligible voters receive disproportionate representation in the process by which its winner is chosen. Can you name one, reformed?
Why should voters of large population states be penalized in presidential elections (their votes do not have due representation in the electoral college)? Why shouldn't their votes have the exact same representation in the electoral process by which presidents are chosen as do the votes of every other voter in the country, just as the vote of every person in a gubernatorial election has exactly the same representation? And isn't the only way to insure that every voter in a presidential election has the same representation in the electoral process to decide the winner of the presidency by counting the national popular vote?
Yes, I can name one. The United States Senate.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Ruling. What seems wrong with the system? Do you think California and New York should decide who gets to be President? Or do you think that the little states should get a fair shot as well?
Wyoming has approximately 0.2% of the country's population, yet has approximately 0.6% of the electoral college's votes. That is, the voters of Wyoming have approximately 200% more representation in the electoral college than their state's population deserves. When electing the president of the United States, why should the voters of Wyoming or any other state have three times as much representation than their population deserves?
California has approximately 12% of the country's population, yet has approximately 10% of the electoral college's votes. That is, the voters of California have approximately 83% of the representation in the electoral college that their state's population deserves. Why should the voters of California only have 80+% of their due electoral college representation, while voters in other states have as much as 200% of their representation?
In state gubernatorial races, there are no special protections for rural or small-population areas. The state of New York, for example, has decidedly rural, Republican-leaning areas outside its metropolitan areas. Yet voters of those areas are not afforded special consideration; their votes count as much, but not more than, anyone else's in the state.
I know of no other elective office in the country whose eligible voters receive disproportionate representation in the process by which its winner is chosen. Can you name one, reformed?
Why should voters of large population states be penalized in presidential elections (their votes do not have due representation in the electoral college)? Why shouldn't their votes have the exact same representation in the electoral process by which presidents are chosen as do the votes of every other voter in the country, just as the vote of every person in a gubernatorial election has exactly the same representation? And isn't the only way to insure that every voter in a presidential election has the same representation in the electoral process to decide the winner of the presidency by counting the national popular vote?
Yes, I can name one. The United States Senate.
I assume you mean the fact that states large and small all have the same number of senators. The problem with that example is that it reflects the American legislative process, NOT the American electoral process.
I asked for "another elective office whose eligible voters receive disproportionate representation in the process by which its winner is chosen" (i.e. the election) Each vote cast in a U.S. Senate election has the exact same representation as all the others in the election that chooses the winner.
In six weeks, voters in Tennessee, for example, will elect a senator. Every vote in that senatorial election will have exactly the same influence on the final result of the election. No voter in the state will be denied the same influence (one person, one vote) as every other voter in the state on the basis of where he or she lives.
It's true that citizens in Wyoming DO have disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate; but that's representation in the legislative process, a process in which all citizens are ALSO represented by House members, where the representation is much more proportionate (California has approx. 12.3% of the population, and 12.2% of the members of the House; Wyoming has about 0.2% of the nation's population about that same percentage of the House)
But those details aren't on-point, because I asked for an elective office whose voters receive disproportionate representation in the electoral process, NOT in the work done once those elected take office.
So I'll ask again: Can you name an elective office whose eligible voters receive disproportionate representation in the election by which its winner is chosen?
-
@reformed said:
Ruling. What seems wrong with the system? Do you think California and New York should decide who gets to be President? Or do you think that the little states should get a fair shot as well?
Why not the will of the people? Popular vote. CM
-
Because do you think the will of California and New York represents the will of the whole country? No, it doesn't.
-
@reformed said:
Because do you think the will of California and New York represents the will of the whole country? No, it doesn't.
One man one vote. That's the will of the people. CM
-
@reformed said:
That's why we have the legislature. Founders thought your way was a bad idea.History said, only those in the slave states thought it was a bad idea. In short, Reformed, the Electoral College is a compromise to appease the slave states. Check your history for the facts or ask Bill. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
That's why we have the legislature. Founders thought your way was a bad idea.History said, only those in the slave states thought it was a bad idea. In short, Reformed, the Electoral College is a compromise to appease the slave states. Check your history for the facts or ask Bill. CM
Actually I think it is you who needs to check your history...
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
That's why we have the legislature. Founders thought your way was a bad idea.History said, only those in the slave states thought it was a bad idea. In short, Reformed, the Electoral College is a compromise to appease the slave states. Check your history for the facts or ask Bill. CM
Actually I think it is you who needs to check your history...
Prove me wrong, brother. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
That's why we have the legislature. Founders thought your way was a bad idea.History said, only those in the slave states thought it was a bad idea. In short, Reformed, the Electoral College is a compromise to appease the slave states. Check your history for the facts or ask Bill. CM
Actually I think it is you who needs to check your history...
Prove me wrong, brother. CM
You are the one making claim, burden of proof is on you.
-
@reformed said:
You are the one making claim, burden of proof is on you.
What I state is so. Why do you question it? It is the truth. CM
-
If it is so, provide evidence.
-
@C_M_ anything?
