The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Do you think the electoral college is fair?in Politics

fullyabra1939

After Clintons loss many people don't think so. I think it is fair.

SilverishGoldNova

It's just another way that big brother furthers their puppeteering system. 

SnakesOfferingApples

I mean there are many problems with it, why don't we just put up posts and count each vote individually using scantrons? 

AlwaysCorrect

Due to the way the system works, votes in places like Wyoming have around X3 more effect than votes in places like New York. A geographical pot luck on how influential your vote is smacks of unfairness.

I also think it's generally poor for other reasons, but those are less to do with fairness.

Oswald_Mosley

I don't particularly care about how much the country supports the leader with such small details concerning a million. I just find it ridiculous that our country can become an oligarchy if somebody has money and a lot of time.

Fascism

The electoral college doesn't consider everyone's voice equally. It's not fair. End of debate. 

Nope

No

ViceRegent

Yes, for it prevents liberal States from imposing their immorality on the rest of us.

Nope

ViceRegent That does not make a system fair.

CYDdharta

We are a republic, not a democracy.  The electoral college was designed and implemented to thwart mob rule and ensure everyone was represented.  It is more important now than at any time in my lifetime.

DrCereal

CYDdharta said:

We are a republic, not a democracy.  The electoral college was designed and implemented to thwart mob rule and ensure everyone was represented.  It is more important now than at any time in my lifetime.

Why is it more important now?

CYDdharta

DrCereal said:

Why is it more important now?

Because we're more divided now.

ViceRegent

I am thrilled that we are becoming more polarized.  Gone is the notion that tyranny-lite is acceptable. ]
We must either be free or slaves.  There is no middle ground.

WilliamSchulz

I would argue that the electoral college is fair because it balances out the numbers per state and gives a set number based on such. When the electoral college was founded, the electors could actually change their vote if they didn't agree with a canidate, even though they are supposed to represent the people. In the 2016 election, there were 6 dissentors in Republican and Democratic states who simply voted for different people. The Electoral College should definitely be reformed to stop bribing and trivial matters to sway the electors, but as it stands, the Electoral College keeps elections in realism, where popular vote can only go so far.

Nope

WilliamSchulz I disagree. I think a system where less then 25% of votes can get someone in to office it not good. 1 out of 4 people can say go this president and the other 3 could go with a different president and the first could still win. And it has a focus on swing states.

ViceRegent

The electoral college was not meant to be “fair”, whatever that is, but to ensure the big states did not ride roughshod over the small states.

Nope

ViceRegent Like I said not good system.

ViceRegent

What amazes me is these people think their opinion has any value.

Nope

ViceRegent That amazes you. Interesting.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

We are a republic, not a democracy.  

A republic is a representative democracy.
Republic- a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Democracy- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Representative Democracy- Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

Pogue

ViceRegent said:

The electoral college was not meant to be “fair”, whatever that is, but to ensure the big states did not ride roughshod over the small states.

But the 11 biggest states can still win the election on their own. So it doesn't do that

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

A republic is a representative democracy.
Republic- a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Democracy- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Representative Democracy- Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

Correct, and the electoral college is the method used to represent the democracy.

Pogue

@CYDdharta
1. You said we are not a democracy so that entire thing I wrote was to prove you wrong on that. 
2. The Electoral College does not fairly represent the will of the people and makes someone's vote in Montana more powerful than someone's vote living in Texas.

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
1. You said we are not a democracy so that entire thing I wrote was to prove you wrong on that. 
2. The Electoral College does not fairly represent the will of the people and makes someone's vote in Montana more powerful than someone's vote living in Texas.

1. We aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic if you want to be technical.
2. As such, there is no obligation to represent each person equally in a presidential election.  The electoral college was established to represent every region of the country fairly, rather than allow the population centers to dictate all decisions of the federal government.  If people in Texas want to have a bigger impact in presidential election, they are free to move to Montana.

Nope

CYDdharta If they all move to Montana their vote will still mater less.

CYDdharta

Nope said:

CYDdharta If they all move to Montana their vote will still mater less.

They won't all move to Montana.  Not very many people care that much about the issue.  For the few that do move, their vote will count the same as any other Montanans.

Nope

Right now less then 25% of us citizens need to vote on a person for them to win with there only opponent getting more then 75% of the vote. Um..That does not seem right. What happened to majority rules. Candidate often only care about educating and campaign swing states. That is where their focus is. Not where most of the people are. O I see care about what they vote not most of the rest of the people vote. 

CYDdharta

Nope said:

Right now less then 25% of us citizens need to vote on a person for them to win with there only opponent getting more then 75% of the vote. Um..That does not seem right. What happened to majority rules. Candidate often only care about educating and campaign swing states. That is where their focus is. Not where most of the people are. O I see care about what they vote not most of the rest of the people vote. 

How many times has 25% of US citizens beaten 75% in a presidential election?  In fact, how many times has the president been elected without a majority and the winning minority was greater than 1% of the nation's population?  Here's a hint; the answer to both questions is 0.

Nope

CYDdharta I prefer not to wait for a bad unlikely event to occur when I can prevent it. Just because it has yet to happen does not mean it is not a flaw in are system.

WilliamSchulz

Nope said:

WilliamSchulz I disagree. I think a system where less then 25% of votes can get someone in to office it not good. 1 out of 4 people can say go this president and the other 3 could go with a different president and the first could still win. And it has a focus on swing states.

I understand where you are coming from, but electoral votes are based off of population measures. It would not be fair if Montana's 700,000 people had the same amount of votes as New York's 16,000,000 people. Also, all the popular vote margins that didn't elect a president were within 8% of total votes cast, meaning a person with only 25% wouldn't even have a chance of becoming president.

As it stands, I completely agree that polititions have a strong interest in the swing states. However, imagine if every person was willing to switch between Democrat and Republican. Polititions focus on swing states because the people there make rational desision on who to vote for based on the appeal of the canidate, so a canidate will spend extra time to persuade those people. If every person was like a swing state, elections would be very different. Therefore, it is the partial fault of the people for causing their own vote to be hindered, because if more people were willing to consider the alternative, elections would shape up very differently!

Pogue

@CYDdharta
Wait, are we a democracy or not. 
On November 21 you said, "We are a republic, not a democracy." So not a democracy.  
At 2:05 pm today, you said, "Correct, and the electoral college is the method used to represent the democracy." So we are one.
At 4:03 pm today, you said, "We aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic if you want to be technical." Which I explained how we are a republic and democracy. 

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
Wait, are we a democracy or not. 
On November 21 you said, "We are a republic, not a democracy." So not a democracy.  
At 2:05 pm today, you said, "Correct, and the electoral college is the method used to represent the democracy." So we are one.
At 4:03 pm today, you said, "We aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic if you want to be technical." Which I explained how we are a republic and democracy. 

We are a constitutional republic.

CYDdharta

Nope said:

CYDdharta I prefer not to wait for a bad unlikely event to occur when I can prevent it. Just because it has yet to happen does not mean it is not a flaw in are system.

I prefer to see proof that there really is a problem before changing our nation's constitution.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Nope said:

CYDdharta I prefer not to wait for a bad unlikely event to occur when I can prevent it. Just because it has yet to happen does not mean it is not a flaw in are system.

I prefer to see proof that there really is a problem before changing our nation's constitution.

Ok here are problems. In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 the person who won the popular vote lost the electoral college. Read this http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

CYDdharta said:

Nope said:

CYDdharta I prefer not to wait for a bad unlikely event to occur when I can prevent it. Just because it has yet to happen does not mean it is not a flaw in are system.

I prefer to see proof that there really is a problem before changing our nation's constitution.

Ok here are problems. In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 the person who won the popular vote lost the electoral college. Read this http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm

That isn't a problem, that is the system working as it was designed.

Nope

CYDdharta Don't forget. This debate is about weather the system is good. It is not about if the system is working the way it is supposed to. : )

CYDdharta

Nope said:

CYDdharta Don't forget. This debate is about weather the system is good. It is not about if the system is working the way it is supposed to. : )

Is it?  I thought it was about whether or not the system was fair.

Pogue

@CYDdharta
If it is fair it is more likely better. If it isn't and creates inequality based on where someone lives then it is not good.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

CYDdharta said:

Nope said:

CYDdharta I prefer not to wait for a bad unlikely event to occur when I can prevent it. Just because it has yet to happen does not mean it is not a flaw in are system.

I prefer to see proof that there really is a problem before changing our nation's constitution.

Ok here are problems. In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 the person who won the popular vote lost the electoral college. Read this http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm

That isn't a problem, that is the system working as it was designed.

Ok, a system working the way it is designed doesn't make it good. So yes, it is a problem. 

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
If it is fair it is more likely better. If it isn't and creates inequality based on where someone lives then it is not good.

There will be inequalities based on where someone lives regardless of the system used.  At least people who live in more rural areas get some representation with this system.

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Ok, a system working the way it is designed doesn't make it good. So yes, it is a problem. 

You're ignoring the problem it was designed to address.

Pogue

@CYDdharta What is the problem it was designed to address.

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta What is the problem it was designed to address.

It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.

http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college