Recommended Posts
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteA couple of hundred years ago it was decided that the US would be a tight-knit assembly of generally independent governments. Those governments chose the president. Those governments first asked the citizens for their opinion in the matter, but the citizens had no more than an advisory role.
That's what I was getting at. Thank you." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteIn The World According To Don, it's one person, one vote; then you add them all up, without regard to what state the person lives in, and the person with the most votes wins.
No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want.
But with approximate proportional representation of the population via the number of electoral votes alloted by state, having an electoral college does nothing to stop the influence of large population centers.
billvon 2,356
>government chosen by the people, which is what we have.
If that's true, most would be wrong. A true democracy is a system of government where people vote on everything directly. The closest we come to that are state ballot measures, where you can vote directly on propositions.
What we have instead is a hybrid of several forms of government. We are primarily a republic, which is a system of government based on popular representation and control. We vote for representatives and they decide laws.
We also have elements of a pure democracy (state ballot measures) socialism (the feds own and operate the interstates, ATC and the CDC) communism (we all own the national parks) and monarchy (we have one leader who doesn't have to listen to anyone.)
QuoteQuoteYou can not afford to totally neglect parts of the country during the campaign like you can with the current system.
Sure you can. It works the same way. Say Hillary Clinton is running for POTUS. You think she's gonna put any energy into campaigning in Lubbock Or Oklahoma City? No. What's the point?
Will she campaign in LA, SF, NY, Boston or Miami? No, not really. She will be in those places frequently, though - for fundraising.
She WILL be campaigning 500 miles east and west of the Mississippi River. She will be campaigning in Florida and Pennsylvania. That's where she'll get the bang-for-her-campaign bucks - the opportunity to gain the most votes.
And all the above, I believe, she will be doing anyway in the next 17 months. Or do you reckon she will be campaigning (not only fundraising) in LA, SF, NY, Boston or Miami in her current campaign? I think she would be more likely to do so if she had to fight for every vote.
On a tangent, I am not necessarily a big fan of the popular vote. But I believe that, in the case of the US, if the "EC" system is to be kept, states should be given more autonomy from the Fed than they currently have, so as to somewhat turn a state popular voting system into a meaningful vote.
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
QuoteAw, fuck that. I've heard it before and it is utter bullshit. What the fuck are we spreading in Iraq (or trying to)? Republic?
No, we are spreading 'freedom and democracy'.
We'd have even less luck trying that. A simple majority rules would be a disaster in Iraq where one ethnic faction would always win.
QuoteQuoteLos Angeles is a population of 8,000,000. Omaha is roughly 390,000. If I win in LA, I don't care how the people in Omaha vote (in broad terms).
Unless you win a very tight race in LA, and lose by a lot in Omaha. What matters is not whether you win in LA, Omaha, NYC or Monkey's Eyebrow, KY (my favorite!), but whether you have one more vote than your opponent.
There are a lot more Omaha'ss then LA's. A 10% victory in LA is worth 20 5% victories in these smaller cities. So if you made it a popular vote, the astute candidate will target the biggest population centers where he or she is favored and maximize the gain. Smaller cities that are clusted along an easy transportation route will also be favored over ones that are more geographically remote.
Sure, Bush didn't win in LA, NY, or SF (btw, the city itself only has 750,000 people, San Jose is a bit more centric). I'm sure he won big in Houston and Dallas.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteSo polarizing the areas of the country so one group gains at the expense of the other just for political gain is a good idea?
One would argue that looking at the current "political" map, it's already quite polarized...
Which I stated in the original note. This is simply one group trying to get advantage over the other. Simple enough. Trying to say it's 'right' or 'correct' is silly. It's game rules - therefore subjective. Right now, it's very balanced, to make the change would be a huge tip of the scales.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
kallend 1,611
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo polarizing the areas of the country so one group gains at the expense of the other just for political gain is a good idea?
One would argue that looking at the current "political" map, it's already quite polarized...
Which I stated in the original note. This is simply one group trying to get advantage over the other. Simple enough. Trying to say it's 'right' or 'correct' is silly. It's game rules - therefore subjective. Right now, it's very balanced, to make the change would be a huge tip of the scales.
Well, the detailed analysis of voting power is a non trivial exercise in mathematics, and as in most such cases, what appears at first sight to be obvious turns out to be wrong. Those supporters of the Electoral College as it currently exists might be surprised by the actual results.
www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/ for description.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
champu 1
QuoteLet's say that 70 percent of New York voters vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. But New York has this law. John McCain, through his strength in the rest of the country, manages to eke out the popular vote by 50,000 votes. Despite the overwhelming desire of the New York voters, New York's votes go to McCain.
This means that the will of the voters of that state is set aside.
The will of those whose candidate lost is always set aside.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. If 270 electoral votes worth of states institute this policy, then we will have a de facto popular voting system. After all the ballots are cast and the count is in, the mechanism by which the popular vote resulted in a candidate being elected is irrelevant. You do, however, raise an excellent point in asking whether this is the proper way for a coalition of states to enact such a change to the election process.
Zipp0 1
For the last 6 years we have had a dictatorship.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Zipp0 1
By definition, the USA is both a liberal democracy and a republic.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
QuoteI didn't say "true democracy', I said the common understanding/usage of the term.
There's no point in language if you're going to operate in such a vague way. Many terms are commonly misdefined in speech. That's not an excuse to use in the written word.
Just in the prior post you showed a poor understanding of the word 'dictatorship.' We've seen nothing remotely like one in the US, as much as some whiny pacifists and leftists would like to believe.
mnealtx 0
QuoteAll of this bickering is moot anyway.
For the last 6 years we have had a dictatorship.
Dictatorship? Fucking please... do you always overdramatize this much?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,356
Ask a man on the street if we should ban use of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide in schools and hospitals, and 95% of them will say yes as well. Doesn't mean that they know what it is.
Of course I don't believe that.
But when the Bush admin talks about Iraq, they say that it is our intent to spread democracy around the world. He doesn't say "we need to spread representative republic" to the repressed.
In modern usage, most understand Democracy to mean a government chosen by the people, which is what we have.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites