Message boards :
Politics :
US Elections 2016
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 35 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
qbit Send message Joined: 19 Sep 04 Posts: 630 Credit: 6,868,528 RAC: 0 |
I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win. I'm personally not OK with it, for the very reason you just said. Others are OK with it as they say "it prevents tyranny of the majority" I say it encourages tyranny of the minority. How bout this: we keep a system like the electoral college as a stop-gap measure, while making it their job to attempt to reflect the popular vote, instead of their respective state's votes? Yes I know the state's rights Guys here would not like that at all, because "the states elect the president, not the people" (which is sadly true) #resist |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19012 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win. Correction over 49%, that was the year Perot got 8.4%. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Well, Ex... You SHOULD know... There is NO 'nationwide' popular vote for US President. The People do NOT elect the President. The State Governments (Legislatures) do. Read the Constitution. The State Legislatures, by custom -- but NOT Constitutionally required -- hold 'elections' within their respective States to decide how to vote. But these are totally separate from each other. There are 51 (50 States plus D.C.) separate 'elections'. They are not in any way, shape, form, or fashion, cumulative with one another. The People do not elect the President, nor SHOULD they. The State Governments do. This is part of the checks and balances system. A strong case can be made that the 17th amendment was a mistake, taking away election of the US Senators from the State Governments. The People have their directly-elected representatives in Washington, D.C. -- The House of Representatives (which has the Power of the Purse). And don't start saying anything about 'the People need a voice... doing things the Constitution's way deprives the People of their voice in matters'... If you do go there, you are condemning representative democracy. The People (in each State) DO have a voice... You know... The Directly Elected State Governments of each individual State... IF you do go there, you are calling into question our entire system of Government (Republic -- aka. Representative Democracy), and are advocating Mob Rule (aka. Direct Democracy). https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
Meaning, Clinton still had more votes than the other candidate. It's rare for someone to win the election while having less votes than [one of] their competitors, but it happened in November, no matter what word-play one uses to describe it. #resist |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
|
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
None of your whining here matters. Trump is our next president. Get over it. Get over yourselves. Honor him. You do not have to praise him.......yet. Meow. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win. Percentages Clinton: 43.0%, Bush: 37.4%, Perot: 18.9%. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
MK, see message 1841896. NO. You still do not understand. The People do NOT vote for President in a nationwide popular vote, nor SHOULD they. The people elect members of their State Governments, which then appoint the people (the Electors) (by custom, a Statewide Popular vote decides who they appoint, but it is not a Constitutional requirement) who DO elect the President. ANY attempt to have this changed is supporting Mob Rule (which was the explicit reason it was set up this way to begin with). What is wrong? You don't support the 'Rule of Law' through the Constitutionally-limited Representative Democracy (Republic) that we (supposedly) have in place? Then you must support Tyranny of the Majority, for THAT is what Direct Democracy (Mob Rule) is. Remember, we are NOT one monolithic nation. We ARE a Constitutional Federal Republic of Constitutional Republics (currently 50 of them). https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
I understand fully MK. I just don't agree with it. Assuming following the constitutional rules you've outlined, and the way the system works today, then perhaps the states should individually make sure their electoral votes are properly split up to reflect the popular vote (*within* each state). I.e. a state with 10 electoral votes has a population who has voted 60/40, you then split up the votes 6 and 4... Then go a bit further, and readjust the division of electoral votes per state, to better reflect the population of each state. I.e. State A has double the population of State B, then State A should have double the votes. Would this be an acceptable compromise MK? #resist |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
What's wrong with the electoral college has an easy fix. The number of votes each state gets is the number of representatives it gets in the House. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
What's wrong with the electoral college has an easy fix. The number of votes each state gets is the number of representatives it gets in the House. I did some reading in December on how we've had a few changes in how the calculations for apportionment are done. 1) I did not see anything in it regarding how this involved amending the Constitution. The language used in the Constitution was apparently a little vague. Apportioned "according to their numbers". I believe they meant "proportional". 2) It appears that, like the difference between an arithmetic and geometric mean, rather than using proportions as the general population understands them (something linear), we are using something geometric. Again, I am fairly sure that change did not involve an amendment and I'd like to know the logic, the pros and cons for doing the apportionment as we do now. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
I understand fully MK. I just don't agree with it. The way each State divides up its EC votes is totally up to each individual State. The Federal Government has NO Constitutional Authority to impose any one-size-fits-all 'solution'. It is up to each State how they do theirs, and ONLY that State. The way that the current number of EC Votes a State gets is (# of US Representatives in the US House + # of US Senators the State gets -- 2 at the moment). This was a compromise made in order to get the small-population States to agree to the Constitution. The small-population States were concerned that they would be totally dominated by the large-population States. So, the House was proportional to Population, to keep the large-pop States happy. The Senate was made equal-numbers of Senators per State to keep the Small-pop States happy. Indeed, equal numbers of Senators for each State is the only part of the Constitution that is NOT subject to change by amendment. US Constitution, Article 5 wrote: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Now then, Both sides would have rejected any simpler method for selecting the number of Electors, depending on the method. The method in the Constitution, (each State gets a number of votes equal to its # of Representatives + its # of Senators). This way, the Large-Pop States still can dominate, but the Small-Pop States have a slight bonus. California has 53 Representatives. 7 States, including North Dakota, have only 1. So, this becomes 55 and 3. Not that big of a change, and a VITAL compromise. What is the big deal? Good luck getting it changed. There are 50 States. Three-Quarters of the States must agree to any Constitutional Amendment (38 of them currently). There are: 7 States with 1 Representative. (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). 5 States with 2 Representatives. (Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island). 3 States with 3 Representatives. (Nebraska, New Mexico, and West Virginia). That is a total of 15 States that have either 1, 2, or 3 Representatives. 13 No Votes by the States on a Constitutional Amendment is enough to kill it. You think the Constitution is going to get changed to alter/abolish the Electoral College?? Not Gonna Happen. And as I have said, the only possible end run by the Federal Government to do is to make the number of US Senators proportional to population, but per the Constitution, this is NOT possible either. So no, this is not an acceptable compromise. It undoes the very compromise that made the US Constitution possible in the first place... The Great Compromise of 1787, and the small-population States will not go for it. Part one of your suggestion can not be imposed on the State Governments from the outside, but must be an internal decision by each State Government on its own... 2 States have done what you suggest. There is another similar proposal making its rounds through the State Governments, some have agreed to it, some have not. But each State's decision to agree to it is binding only on that State, and indeed can be over-ridden at will by those States. Part 2 is a total non-starter. Constitutionally impossible. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
It began with liberal logic. Have you ever read the Original 1st Amendment, from the 12 proposed amendments in the original Bill of Rights? It is the only one that has not been adopted, yet. 3 through 12 were adopted right off and became Amendment 1 through Amendment 10. The original #2 was finally ratified (or declared ratified, they missed a State -- Kentucky) May 18th 1992, a bit over 202 years after it got proposed by Congress. The original #1 had to do with number of population per representative. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
MK, it wasn't about electors as to the reason for the Senate. It was about stopping big state legislation small states wouldn't like. As to easy, if Trump FUBAR's as bad as many expect, the fact he didn't get more votes than his opponent will create a bad taste in the mouths of some of those small states and it can because very easy. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
MK, it wasn't about electors as to the reason for the Senate. It was about stopping big state legislation small states wouldn't like. Well, as to Trump eff'ing up, that is virtually a given. Remember, WELL before the election, I called him 'poison' and a 'fascist dictator wannabe'... And as to your comment about 'the reason' the Senate was done that way, of COURSE it was about stopping big states from dictating things to the small states, and I said as much. BUT... it was ALSO a factor in the design of the EC. The small states did not want to be quite so... irrelevant. So House PLUS Senate was used as the number of electors each State got. If electors were allocated on a solely population-proportional basis, the small States would end up being even more... ignored... than they already are. The REAL method to electoral reform (at all levels) in the USA would be to increase the number of political parties present in the elections, and break the electoral duopoly that the R's and the D's currently enjoy. It is a disgrace that the D/R duopoly effectively prevents the current #3 party in the Nation from having ANY seats in Congress. Solution? Break the D/R duopoly. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
Interesting read MK. Once again, I've learned something right here in the Politics threads. (that happens occasionally) I guess I'll just hold out hope for an amendment in the future, I can't disagree with Gary's idea that perhaps more states will be more on board after the PEeOTUS takes charge and runs things into the ground. And I am glad to hear that at least 2 states break up their electoral votes in what I would call a 'proper' fashion, so as not to magnify the number of electoral votes a candidate ends up with. #resist |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
We are a nation of STATES. The federal government derives its power from the STATES. Yes. The UNITED states. Hmm... |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.