The Debate Club discussion

.

I still don't understand what the Electoral college is. But from what I heard, it sounds stupid. Why does everyone have to vote if its gonna depend on some group of like 10 people in the end?

cami wrote: "no.... I think that the candidate more people vote for should be the one who wins"

exactly! like in 2016 clinton had like 3 million more votes but she still lost...how is that democratic?

and also another thing: if you are like a conservative in california, or a liberal in texas, your presidential vote literally doesn't matter. Really, your vote only matters if you live in a swing state.

Dismantle the whole thing, do it based on majority of the population. Ranked choice voting would work as well.

Video on ranked choice voting: https://youtu.be/8Z2fRPRkWvY?si=KFT1D...

yeah no i dont like electoral college, it should be the majoirt vote

https://www.history.com/articles/elec...

The electoral college was actually a compromised idea, the only one the founding fathers could agree on. At the time it was created, no other countries used popular vote, their idea was already odd. Website explains more.

The electoral college is 500 and something people all looking at data and current votes to decide on theirs, it is not a matter of personal opinion.

Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "https://www.history.com/articles/elec...

The electoral college was actually a compromised idea, the only one the founding fathers could agree o..."

Just because it was what they compromised on doesn't mean it's good or should still be used, its the reason the constitution has amendments

Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "https://www.history.com/articles/elec...

The electoral college was actually a compromised idea, the only one the founding fathers could agree o..."

yeah they created the college because they thought the masses were idiots, and wanted only well-educated people to cast votes. previously, electors were chosen by state legislatures and it was definitely a lot more democratic than it is now. today, who the electors are don't even matter; you're just going off of each states' popular vote. even though it's a federal election.

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "https://www.history.com/articles/elec...

The electoral college was actually a compromised i..."

Oh yeah, never said it was good or bad, i dont really have a strong opinion on this topic, i was just providing some background i suppose.

I think using an electoral college is outdated. The population in the United States right now is vastly different than what it was in the 1800s, and using a popular vote is a lot more fair than it used to be (that's why the Electoral collage was created). Maybe for some states,s it still makes sense to use it (eg, Rhode island, Delaware, Connecticut..) but idk.

I don't like it, majority vote should be the one counting

I dislike it. We're supposed to be a democracy why do a group of people get to decide what the country wants. Also I swear I heard people bribe the voters there.

Sai :) wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "https://www.history.com/articles/elec...

The electoral college was actually a compromised i..."

I taught Civics for a long time to 7th graders and their parents (and other educators too). During our discussions, it became more and more evident that the electoral college is necessary. Why? Because we are a Federal Democratic Republic and not a democracy.
In the Federal Democratic Republic each citizen gets a vote to tell the state who to vote for. And, because each state has a different population, each state gets a representative amount of votes (one for each HR rep and two for each Senator). The total would be HR+2. It is unfair to call the popular vote a federal election. The presidential election are 50 states and DC - total 538 Electoral College votes.
So, the states cast their electoral vote based on the popular vote. The total electors, elect the president once they get to 270 electoral votes (1 over half of Congressional representatives 269+269=538, so 270 wins).
This provides for two things:
1 - popular representation and,
2 - state representation.
However, when state representation receives 270 votes, states remain more powerful than the individual.
It is actually a very good system. It prevents a king from being elected over and over and over and over. This is the reason other "Democracies" around the world do not work.
England for instance - has no state structure. Other Democracies that have popular vote are Russia, Iraq, Iran, China, etc...
This is a check and balance on the people becoming lemmings.
The Electoral College is the reason we are so SUCCESSFUL as a Federal Democratic Republic. States ultimately have the power and together they rule the Federal Government.

i honestly disagree. state representation is less important that representation of the actual people. what even are states? they're just lines that we've drawn on a map, and now they dictate who becomes president rather than in the actual people. if the majority people prefer someone to be president, that person should be president. you are making the electoral college sound like a fair way of representation, but it's really not. as an example, in 2024, california as a whole voted for harris. but millions of other californians voted for trump. however, their votes were essentially disregarded for the sole reason that they were in the minority. they did not count towards the actual determining factor of the election---electoral votes---because more californians voted for a different candidate. that's not democracy. you are literally trashing the voted of millions of people using an unfair method. in 2016, hillary clinton had the popular vote. most of america wanted her to win. but she lost, because the arbitrary state lines just so happened to generate more electoral votes for trump than her. this is honestly a bit like gerrymandering, except now it's at a national level. we are letting state lines get in the way of what the people actually want. and this is just a sidenote, but the system of electors is unfair in other ways too. if you do the math, a voter in california, the most populous state, has 7x less power in a presidential election than a voter in wyoming, the least populous. i do not see how all of this is fair.