The Electoral College
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 05:04 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 04:50 PM)tomilay Wrote:  The desired changes at the Federal level, from what I gather, would be to give people a direct vote for President. The guy with the most votes wins.

The concerns, such as domination by big states can be taken care of by the Electoral College or some other mechanism. To win, the guy who gets the most votes, should also get a certain number, even 270 or more, of Electoral College votes.

I don't like it. Adds additional complexity with unintended consequences too intricate to predict.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 05:11 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 05:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 04:50 PM)tomilay Wrote:  The desired changes at the Federal level, from what I gather, would be to give people a direct vote for President. The guy with the most votes wins.

The concerns, such as domination by big states can be taken care of by the Electoral College or some other mechanism. To win, the guy who gets the most votes, should also get a certain number, even 270 or more, of Electoral College votes.

I don't like it. Adds additional complexity with unintended consequences too intricate to predict.

The only addition is the requirement for the winner to have the most votes.

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
21-12-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 05:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 04:50 PM)tomilay Wrote:  The desired changes at the Federal level, from what I gather, would be to give people a direct vote for President. The guy with the most votes wins.

The concerns, such as domination by big states can be taken care of by the Electoral College or some other mechanism. To win, the guy who gets the most votes, should also get a certain number, even 270 or more, of Electoral College votes.

I don't like it. Adds additional complexity with unintended consequences too intricate to predict.

Given the history of the Electoral College, there is only a handful of times when the winner has had fewer votes - though that trend may be gradually changing. Still, very few times. The idea of a popular vote determining the winner is not as strange as it may seem at first.

If you include the requirement for popular vote majority, you are only looking at a few times when the winner misses that. If that happens, then another mechanism - first past post or something else - can be used.

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
21-12-2016, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 05:36 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 05:11 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 05:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I don't like it. Adds additional complexity with unintended consequences too intricate to predict.

The only addition is the requirement for the winner to have the most votes.

Still don't like it. Pretty sure it would require a Constitutional amendment anyway and no way 38 states would approve it. And an unintended consequence of pushing for one too hard might be "hey that gives me an idea" and a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that the winner "accumulating a majority of the nationwide citizen vote is not a requirement for election" would be proposed instead. That one would pass easily if proposed today.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 08:41 PM
RE: The Electoral College
David Bright's (Maine) "day in court" starts at 2:25 to 5:50




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2016, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2016 02:55 AM by morondog.)
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:19 PM)Vosur Wrote:  As for that last part, I don't know what you expect me to do beyond apologizing; I moved on from that incident a long time ago. If you want to hold a grudge against me over it for years on end, that's your choice.

It's not that I hold a grudge, it's just that you've created distrust and even though I try I can't ignore it. That's *your* action that resulted in that. If you want to be trusted, don't do shit like that. ETA: I dunno. Maybe I'm being harsh. All I know is you and I, we no longer see eye to eye.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-12-2016, 05:38 AM
RE: The Electoral College
(22-12-2016 02:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:19 PM)Vosur Wrote:  As for that last part, I don't know what you expect me to do beyond apologizing; I moved on from that incident a long time ago. If you want to hold a grudge against me over it for years on end, that's your choice.

It's not that I hold a grudge, it's just that you've created distrust and even though I try I can't ignore it. That's *your* action that resulted in that. If you want to be trusted, don't do shit like that. ETA: I dunno. Maybe I'm being harsh. All I know is you and I, we no longer see eye to eye.

I don't give a shit if I see eye-to-eye with someone or not, I care if they're a dick. Vosur's turned into a dick so I treat him like one.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-12-2016, 06:35 AM
RE: The Electoral College
(22-12-2016 05:38 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-12-2016 02:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  It's not that I hold a grudge, it's just that you've created distrust and even though I try I can't ignore it. That's *your* action that resulted in that. If you want to be trusted, don't do shit like that. ETA: I dunno. Maybe I'm being harsh. All I know is you and I, we no longer see eye to eye.

I don't give a shit if I see eye-to-eye with someone or not, I care if they're a dick. Vosur's turned into a dick so I treat him like one.

You beat him mercilessly?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
22-12-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 04:57 PM)tomilay Wrote:  The effect the Electoral College is to further suppress the incentive to vote. Republicans in blue states, Democrats in red states - they can both be discouraged to vote for President because it's a meaningless vote.

I think this probably affects both parties in such states. The other day, LDH made the claim that there would have been more Republican votes from California if we had a straight popular vote, since many of those people stayed home because their candidate had no chance to win the state. He's probably right, but I'm going to claim that a lot of Democrats in California probably stayed home as well. Why take the trouble to go to the polls, stand in line, etc., when your candidate is guaranteed to win anyway? Logically, "swing states" should have the highest turnout from both parties.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-12-2016, 02:09 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(14-12-2016 02:12 PM)Dom Wrote:  There are the following 3 purposes governing the electoral college:

In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the electors would prevent those with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming president. They would also stop anyone who would “convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements.”

In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that one major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” He said that the college would “Guard against all danger of this sort … with the most provident and judicious attention” from the electors.

The third goal was to prevent poor administration of government. This is a less well-known purpose of the Electoral College, but it is again expressly discussed in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton wrote that “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration,” and for that reason, he said, the electors should be “able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.”

Who determines the critical thinking ability of the electors? It's a mess, and keep in mind that the writers of the Federalist papers were not bound to tell the truth of any, or all analysis of the abstract system (constitution) that was being campaigned - they were partial and determined to get what ever they had going, because there was no other organizational plan, other than the subsisting Articles of Confederation.

The Electoral College was the most probable attempt at establishing a "primary election system," because there was no other system to consider; and it was subject to corruption, just as we are becoming more, and more, understanding of how it is with organizing national primary elections. It is obvious that the DNC was predetermined to nominate Hillary Clinton, because Hillary was higher on the donor totem pole, because of her long time corrupt political career.

Organizing a national election is difficult - it seems easy, because for all you know it has been going on before you were born, and it seems to work.

But the idea of the electors going against the election results in this day and age of telecommunications is just not going to happen - it will lead to civil war.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TrainWreck's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: