A modest proposal for electoral reform
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(30-01-2013 08:55 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 01:10 PM)Generation Why? Wrote:  A democracy is not the answer. We are a Constitutional-Republic. Big difference. Keep the Electoral College but change it up so that states are not winner take all. Tie the EC votes to the districts, like they do in Maine. It is a more accurate understanding of who wants what. Winning a state 51.1%-49.9% and giving them all the EC votes in that state is not an accurate representation of what the populace wants.
Nothing is stopping more states from doing that right now. States decide how to apportion their electors.

And in response to the OP, if you were looking for a random selection of idiots, the current Congress already has a representative sample of that.

Agreed on both points.

[Image: bmHWg.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(30-01-2013 09:49 PM)Generation Why? Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 08:55 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Nothing is stopping more states from doing that right now. States decide how to apportion their electors.

And in response to the OP, if you were looking for a random selection of idiots, the current Congress already has a representative sample of that.

Agreed on both points.
It's not much more of an accurate depiction and that system still screws over multiple states... you know the particular states that have 1 district throughout. So they basically ARE already doing that by default and they still are upset when they get ignored in the politicking policy because it is known they will be voting 1 way most of the time. There is 7 states that are fitting in that category I think.

Another reason the "district" choice is bad is because how the districts are defined and chosen. They aren't a good representation of the general public because they are designed by political parties trying to get their edge. It's basically the parties taking all they can do to make the their party get an edge in representatives; it usually is aided by whoever has control of the state and governorship at the time of the census. If that system was changed it may make an improvement, if not, you aren't getting a more true representation; you would possibly get more results disagreeing with the popular vote. This system just aids the battling and strive of two strong polar opposites which is a negative aspect of the current system as I would call it.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
31-01-2013, 12:09 AM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(30-01-2013 01:10 PM)Generation Why? Wrote:  A democracy is not the answer. We are a Constitutional-Republic. Big difference. Keep the Electoral College but change it up so that states are not winner take all. Tie the EC votes to the districts, like they do in Maine. It is a more accurate understanding of who wants what. Winning a state 51.1%-49.9% and giving them all the EC votes in that state is not an accurate representation of what the populace wants.
Not that I disagree that that isn't a more fair solution, I don't see how that is much different than popular vote, except a little less accurate. The reason why we have the electoral college is because it was the only the the less populous southern states would agree to join to form the united states (or United States) so they could have more say in what happened in their state. While it would hurt my probably ideology to do so it would be more fair to use a popular vote. The biggest drawback is I could see it causing another cessation and possible repeat of civil war because it doesn't allow a huge chunk of Americans to feel like their views have a chance of being implemented, maybe up to 40% of Americans. It's all an illusion anyway, the natural tendency is for government to get more and more powerful until it implodes be you R or D. The best thing for peace is probably just to leave shit alone and allow the states to do as they wish whether they choose 'Winner take all' or not.

My humble thoughts anyway...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2013, 07:43 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(27-01-2013 08:11 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  I propose we don't even try reforming the present election process - just scrap that sucker!

Forget the gerrymandering and colleges and throwing losing votes over the fence to a potential winner. Forget the districts. Throw away the voting machines and. Shut down the campaign-ad factories. Cancel the fund-raisers. Disband the parties. eject the lobbyists - but check their pockets for silverware.

It's ironic you should have this view, the GOP agrees with you but not in a way you would like them to.

Quote:Rigging the Vote: PA House Bill 94 Proposes New Republican Electoral College Reforms
If the plan to distribute votes based on gerrymandered Congressional districts, Obama would have received 12 out of 20 electoral votes, despite winning the statewide race by 4 points. Since Voter ID, voter
intimidation and other voting suppression tactics failed to deliver Mitt Romney the election, Republicans in state houses around the country are beginning to look at rigging the electoral vote to secure 2016.
http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2013/0...e-reforms/

Basically your decision is going to be made for you. Just watch the video in the link.

Science investigates, religion interprets.

I got my first like....[Image: weeping.gif] Thank you!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
Why don't you want to assign any specific technical qualifications to the offices?

It seems fairly obvious that we would benefit if we understood that legislators should be well versed in macro-economics, so as, to be able to keep their oversight authority on economic policy, lending rates, and the government budget.

Mayors, Governors, and the President, would be responsible for qualification of the same as the legislators, plus emergency management stuff.

As far as the law school qualifications, that would be necessary of their assistants who draft legislation that reflects the politician's ideals - which is what goes on anyway. You are not going to convince me that any of the big names write legislation.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(05-02-2013 06:30 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Why don't you want to assign any specific technical qualifications to the offices?

It seems fairly obvious that we would benefit if we understood that legislators should be well versed in macro-economics, so as, to be able to keep their oversight authority on economic policy, lending rates, and the government budget.

Mayors, Governors, and the President, would be responsible for qualification of the same as the legislators, plus emergency management stuff.

As far as the law school qualifications, that would be necessary of their assistants who draft legislation that reflects the politician's ideals - which is what goes on anyway. You are not going to convince me that any of the big names write legislation.
I'd say this is a bad idea. The US Constitution has minimal requirements for holding office for a good reason. Who gets to decide these qualifications to run for office? Who gets to judge which economic schools of thought qualify for being considered 'well versed in macro-economics'? Theocracies and dictatorships pre-qualify candidates as a means of
arbitrarily disqualifying candidates to favor an entrenched power. As it stands right now, the US voters do qualify candidates as part of the electoral process. That's a better system than an unelected individual or committee in government prequalifying candidates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 11:03 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(05-02-2013 06:30 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Why don't you want to assign any specific technical qualifications to the offices?
Are there any now? Have there ever been?
Making political decisions doesn't need special qualifications: that's what technical advisors are for.
The average normal adult survives in a crazy world, manages a household, raises kids and does a useful job, in spite of a lunatic boss. The average politician has normal average people doing each of those things for him, while he spends his whole time running for office, keeping the office or paying off the people who put him in office. An average normal person with no axes and no strings could do the actual job we elect politicians for.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 08:03 AM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(27-01-2013 08:11 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  I propose we don't even try reforming the present election process - just scrap that sucker!
Peterkin, you are so far out of the box that it flies over the head of most of us. However, it is refreshing to see something new, instead of the same old shit with minor variations. Considering the current state of the world and the projected slope down to extinction, only drastically new ways have a chance of saving our asses.

Your proposal might just be it.

I think it is worth a try.

Will it be?

Of course not -- it makes too much sense (only tinkering is allowed in the real world and in real heads).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
Obviously, there won't be time for meaningful electoral reform before close of the present politico-economic era. After the current system breaks down, the survivors will probably form much smaller, local communities, wherein they will try various forms of governance. I'm merely offering this option, among many, for consideration.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(27-01-2013 08:11 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  Democracy is a better idea than most other forms of governance human groups have recently devised. In practice, though, democracy tends to get itself co-opted, devalued, prostituted and hijacked.
We don't have a democracy. We have a democratic republic.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: