Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2016, 06:07 AM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
(26-11-2016 11:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 04:20 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm familiar with that literacy test, but not with the expression used in this way. Anyhow, if that's what you meant I don't think anyone is advocating for that - or do you mean a system that's designed to exclude minorities is a better option than the Alternative Voting method?

I meant it tongue-in-cheek to ridicule the electorate by implying they don't even know what "rank-order" means. And there goes the funny in my fun. Thanks.

"I wanna burst all your balloons, I wanna burn all of your cities to the ground!"

- Blues Traveler




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 09:53 PM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
The electoral college is one of the remaining features of federalism within our system of government. That is a good thing--those strong Democratic areas of the country can run their states with all the programs and policies they love, and a federal system guarantees that a handful of populous states can't force the entire country to believe as they do.

I would add that it is wrong to assume a national popular vote would automatically have resulted in president Clinton. Both campaigns were run under the assumption that the president would be selected in 50 state-wide elections. How many voters (in both parties) didn't bother to show up because the opposing party was guaranteed to win in uncompetitive states regardless of their vote?

Hillary Clinton rather foolishly (considering the rules of the election and 20/20 hindsight) allocated significant resources in states that she did not have a chance of winning (like Texas for example) while Trump (again considering the rules and 20/20 hindsight) allocated his resources mostly in states he actually would end up winning. One could argue that Clinton's strategy was better suited to running up the popular vote, while Trump's strategy was better suited to winning the election according to the rules of the election.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 10:38 PM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
(28-11-2016 09:53 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The electoral college is one of the remaining features of federalism within our system of government. That is a good thing--those strong Democratic areas of the country can run their states with all the programs and policies they love, and a federal system guarantees that a handful of populous states can't force the entire country to believe as they do.

I would add that it is wrong to assume a national popular vote would automatically have resulted in president Clinton. Both campaigns were run under the assumption that the president would be selected in 50 state-wide elections. How many voters (in both parties) didn't bother to show up because the opposing party was guaranteed to win in uncompetitive states regardless of their vote?

Hillary Clinton rather foolishly (considering the rules of the election and 20/20 hindsight) allocated significant resources in states that she did not have a chance of winning (like Texas for example) while Trump (again considering the rules and 20/20 hindsight) allocated his resources mostly in states he actually would end up winning. One could argue that Clinton's strategy was better suited to running up the popular vote, while Trump's strategy was better suited to winning the election according to the rules of the election.

This is a good point. A lot of republicans just stay home in California and New York because they know they are so heavily outnumbered their vote doesn't really count. If we used a popular vote, more republicans would show up in those states, and candidates would campaign there more vigorously. This might actually hurt democrats in general elections.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 11:48 PM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
(24-11-2016 12:03 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  This will only get worse for democrats over the next 8 years. Democrats keep leaving other states and move to places like California and Seattle and New York. They're boosting the populations in a few states and will have smaller numbers in every other state. The electoral college will begin to doom them every election. Shifting demographics aren't helping them either, since african Americans and potential target Hispanic groups are mainly in democratic strongholds already.

And republicans are fleeing those places and moving to states with better gun laws like Florida, Arizona and Texas giving them a boost.

And the Republicans and their guns will live happily ever after,
and your jesus-gun will save you fraom all that ails you and society. Facepalm
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
https://law.stanford.edu/2015/10/12/prof...-us-safer/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 11:50 PM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
(28-11-2016 10:38 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  This is a good point. A lot of republicans just stay home in California and New York because they know they are so heavily outnumbered their vote doesn't really count.

And how is it, exactly, that you have determined that ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 04:55 AM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
(28-11-2016 11:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-11-2016 12:03 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  This will only get worse for democrats over the next 8 years. Democrats keep leaving other states and move to places like California and Seattle and New York. They're boosting the populations in a few states and will have smaller numbers in every other state. The electoral college will begin to doom them every election. Shifting demographics aren't helping them either, since african Americans and potential target Hispanic groups are mainly in democratic strongholds already.

And republicans are fleeing those places and moving to states with better gun laws like Florida, Arizona and Texas giving them a boost.

And the Republicans and their guns will live happily ever after,
and your jesus-gun will save you fraom all that ails you and society. Facepalm
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
https://law.stanford.edu/2015/10/12/prof...-us-safer/

I fail to see your point in attacking my post. I was in no way attempting to debate gun rights, only pointing out that many gun owners are moving to more gun friendly states.

And your link contains the ramblings of an anti-gun kook that ignores reality. He uses the "fact" that mass shootings are not stopped by good guys with guns as proof that people don't need guns. He ignores the reason why. Mass shootings are practically always in areas where guns are banned, either by law or personal property rules. Active shooter events commonly occur in the workplace where most employers prevent employees from bringing guns onto the property. The Orlando massacre occured in a nightclub that serves alcohol, so patrons were prohibited to bring firearms onto the premises by law. Schools are common targets for mass shooters. Another gun free zone. All of those gun control laws in France didn't prevent 120 people from being slaughtered at that concert. And yet we have no incidences of mass shootings at events where people are knowingly armed, like gun stores, NRA sponsored events, Bass Pro Shops etc. Fucking pussies always attack crowds they know to be unarmed.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
29-11-2016, 08:08 AM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
The current system is fine. It requires the candidates to pay attention not just to the cities but to the other parts of the country as well.

The problem is not with the electoral college but with the dominance of just two parties that who both put up deeply flawed candidates. If you want to enact meaningful change, start with the two major parties.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 05:45 PM
RE: Replace electoral college with weighted direct vote?
(28-11-2016 11:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-11-2016 10:38 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  This is a good point. A lot of republicans just stay home in California and New York because they know they are so heavily outnumbered their vote doesn't really count.

And how is it, exactly, that you have determined that ?

The more a district uncompetetive, the less likely it will be that opposing point of view voters will bother to show up. This is widely accepted political wisdom--when political consultants refer to "down ballot effects" of a race, they are assuming this characteristic of voting pattern.

During this presidential election, pundits opined that Trump was going to screw the GOP's chance of keeping the House and the Senate because 'obviously' he was going to lose, so 'obviously' GOP voters would be less motivated to show up to the polls with the result of a depressed GOP vote for House and Senate races. Of course, that didn't happen exactly, and in the 'rust belt' states, precisely the opposite happened and in those states where both Trump and marginal GOP candidate won their races.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: