Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2017, 11:36 AM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 05:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm reminded of one of those surveys

And I am reminded this Rolleyes





Such brilliant writing. And acting. Love this series.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
26-07-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 01:30 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Easy answer... the US government needs to make voting compulsory.

91% voter turnout for Australian federal election in 2016 versus a US presidential election turnout of just 55% indicates that the average US citizen just doesn't care who their president is, or are simply too fucking lazy to get out of bed.

And another confounding factor is the outmoded Electoral College system. It has to go ASAP as it got Trump the presidency by default, but with no subsequent mandate by the people.

What would be the advantage of forcing people who "don't care who their president is" to vote? I don't see one.

As for the electoral college, I have mixed feelings. Even as a Democrat who has been "robbed" twice by the EC, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing. The basic idea is to make it harder for a few heavily populated states to rule over the rest of the country, and that concept is at least worth some thought. It's the same reason we have a Senate (where every state has equal representation) as well as a House of Representatives (representation proportional to population).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 11:48 AM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 11:43 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  As for the electoral college, I have mixed feelings. Even as a Democrat who has been "robbed" twice by the EC, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing. The basic idea is to make it harder for a few heavily populated states to rule over the rest of the country, and that concept is at least worth some thought. It's the same reason we have a Senate (where every state has equal representation) as well as a House of Representatives (representation proportional to population).

Does that make sense though? The effect is to make votes in certain states worth more than others. Somewhat anti-democratic. And if the original purpose of the electoral college as I understand it was more as a fail-safe to prevent election of a moron (i.e. Trump) then... it didn't work, since electors did not vote freely but rather were bound by the state result. Rather clear it away and make voting for your leader directly by vote count.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
26-07-2017, 11:58 AM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 11:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 11:43 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  As for the electoral college, I have mixed feelings. Even as a Democrat who has been "robbed" twice by the EC, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing. The basic idea is to make it harder for a few heavily populated states to rule over the rest of the country, and that concept is at least worth some thought. It's the same reason we have a Senate (where every state has equal representation) as well as a House of Representatives (representation proportional to population).

Does that make sense though? The effect is to make votes in certain states worth more than others. Somewhat anti-democratic. And if the original purpose of the electoral college as I understand it was more as a fail-safe to prevent election of a moron (i.e. Trump) then... it didn't work, since electors did not vote freely but rather were bound by the state result. Rather clear it away and make voting for your leader directly by vote count.

The states whose votes are worth more are the less populated states, though, and that is exactly the intent -- to prevent New York and California and a handful of other states from dictating to the rest of the country. Whatever argument you make for abolishing the electoral college would also make a case for abolishing the Senate, and does anyone want to do that? The two cases are more closely related than you might think -- the number of electoral votes for a state is exactly equal to the number of representatives + senators for that state. Adding the two extra electors (i.e., number of senators) is what makes it not strictly proportional.

I'm not saying that I'm 100% in favor of keeping the EC, but I can understand the rationale for having it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 11:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 11:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  Does that make sense though? The effect is to make votes in certain states worth more than others. Somewhat anti-democratic. And if the original purpose of the electoral college as I understand it was more as a fail-safe to prevent election of a moron (i.e. Trump) then... it didn't work, since electors did not vote freely but rather were bound by the state result. Rather clear it away and make voting for your leader directly by vote count.

The states whose votes are worth more are the less populated states, though, and that is exactly the intent -- to prevent New York and California and a handful of other states from dictating to the rest of the country. Whatever argument you make for abolishing the electoral college would also make a case for abolishing the Senate, and does anyone want to do that? The two cases are more closely related than you might think -- the number of electoral votes for a state is exactly equal to the number of representatives + senators for that state. Adding the two extra electors (i.e., number of senators) is what makes it not strictly proportional.

I'm not saying that I'm 100% in favor of keeping the EC, but I can understand the rationale for having it.

But then why should voters in swing states receive disproportionate attention at election time? Capture those and you capture the presidency. It means that those same not-so-populated states voters get a much greater say in running the country than they should. Why *shouldn't* the big population centres have a proportionate say in what goes on in the country?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
26-07-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 11:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Whatever argument you make for abolishing the electoral college would also make a case for abolishing the Senate, and does anyone want to do that? The two cases are more closely related than you might think -- the number of electoral votes for a state is exactly equal to the number of representatives + senators for that state. Adding the two extra electors (i.e., number of senators) is what makes it not strictly proportional.

I'm not saying that I'm 100% in favor of keeping the EC, but I can understand the rationale for having it.

In congress the senate favors small states and the house favors large states so there is a balance there that makes the EC not directly comparable.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 12:16 PM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 12:03 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 11:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The states whose votes are worth more are the less populated states, though, and that is exactly the intent -- to prevent New York and California and a handful of other states from dictating to the rest of the country. Whatever argument you make for abolishing the electoral college would also make a case for abolishing the Senate, and does anyone want to do that? The two cases are more closely related than you might think -- the number of electoral votes for a state is exactly equal to the number of representatives + senators for that state. Adding the two extra electors (i.e., number of senators) is what makes it not strictly proportional.

I'm not saying that I'm 100% in favor of keeping the EC, but I can understand the rationale for having it.

But then why should voters in swing states receive disproportionate attention at election time? Capture those and you capture the presidency. It means that those same not-so-populated states voters get a much greater say in running the country than they should. Why *shouldn't* the big population centres have a proportionate say in what goes on in the country?

I don't have a simple answer for you, but this isn't a simple issue. We have to keep in mind that the US is not, and never has been, a simple democracy. We are a democratic republic, where individual states (as well as individual people) have "equal rights", and numerous aspects of our government are what they are to insure that the states' rights are not overwhelmed by a "majority rules" mentality. If we don't feel that this is right, we can change it, but they intentionally made it difficult to do that. A simple "majority rules" democracy isn't Utopia either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 01:23 PM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 12:16 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  A simple "majority rules" democracy isn't Utopia either.

True. But I think most of the reasons you guys have the system you do are historical. And entrenched interests. No one who benefits from the system as it is would want to change it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 01:38 PM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 01:23 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 12:16 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  A simple "majority rules" democracy isn't Utopia either.

True. But I think most of the reasons you guys have the system you do are historical. And entrenched interests. No one who benefits from the system as it is would want to change it.

Yeah, the people complaining about the EC are mostly Democrats, and had the exact opposite occurred (Clinton loses the popular vote but wins the EC), it would be the Republicans complaining. It's too bad that things have gotten so polarized that people are more concerned with putting/keeping their party in power than with the more important question of what's best for the country.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 02:23 PM
RE: Influencing or Interfering with US Elections
(26-07-2017 11:43 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 01:30 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Easy answer... the US government needs to make voting compulsory.

91% voter turnout for Australian federal election in 2016 versus a US presidential election turnout of just 55% indicates that the average US citizen just doesn't care who their president is, or are simply too fucking lazy to get out of bed.

And another confounding factor is the outmoded Electoral College system. It has to go ASAP as it got Trump the presidency by default, but with no subsequent mandate by the people.

What would be the advantage of forcing people who "don't care who their president is" to vote? I don't see one.

As for the electoral college, I have mixed feelings. Even as a Democrat who has been "robbed" twice by the EC, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing. The basic idea is to make it harder for a few heavily populated states to rule over the rest of the country, and that concept is at least worth some thought. It's the same reason we have a Senate (where every state has equal representation) as well as a House of Representatives (representation proportional to population).

I think EC is meant to mirror the actual populations of the states, with a base minimum of at least one electoral vote per state. I don't think it was designed with controlling domination by populous areas in mind. Because if California gets 50% of the US population, it will, eventually, get a proportional number of electoral votes and still draw most of the candidate's attention.

Granted, underpopulated states can have a greater say with the EC. But this is more a function of the granularity of the EC votes than its motivation. It is still a system where you can cherry pick and ignore some states completely.

There are more practical ways of inclusion, than the EC without the drawbacks. You could use criteria where the winner get a majority of the votes and a certain minimum percentage of votes from a recommended minimum number of regions.

You could say for example, that the winner gets most of the votes, and at least 25%(maybe more) of the votes in at least 30 states.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: