The Electoral College
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2016, 02:33 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(22-12-2016 11:14 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(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.

I agree. A requirement for every vote to count, or even the same Electoral College with a proportional partitioning of the College vote in each state, would likely push up participation from both sides, in every state. Every state becomes a swing state.

That one cannot even countenance the idea of such a change, is a sign of how hopelessly partisan the country has become.

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
22-12-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(19-12-2016 10:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  The question is, is the potential fall-out from having a buffoon like Trump running the country into the ground more than the fall-out described? Speaking from experience, if you've identified a snake, rather kill it. Everyone knew that Zuma was bad news before he ever got into office, even his apologists had to resort to saying things like "lets give him a chance". Same with Trump.
We are assigning too much power to the Executive Office - where's the checks and balances in the description of your fear in this post???

Is it at all possible that the founder's, because of the lack of technology and educated man-power, that they did not know how to properly organize the government???

I agree that the constitution of 1787 was an honorable charter – it was designed to organize an industrious economic union, as never before; and to end slavery. It worked, but it was not designed for environmental economics, and social desegregation. It is absurd to believe that it is anything near what the founders would generate with the technology and educated man-power that we have today. If they had the telephone and mail transportation systems that were in service a hundred years ago, you can safely bet that they would have organized a network of representatives from the municipal councils, and a network of the state legislatures for the senate. If they had known how to organize the executive departments, they would have done so; and not leave it to the exercise of crony appointments.

If they had known how to organize the judiciary, they would have done so. If they had known that criminal prosecution needed to be organized and separated from the other three branches, they would have done so. If they had known that a central bank was inevitable and how to organize it, they would have done so. If they had known how to organize a budget, they would have done so.

We know how to do these things, now.

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
[+] 3 users Like TrainWreck's post
23-12-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 05:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 05:11 PM)tomilay Wrote:  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.

I agree that the first amendment would likely die a cold death, but the latter hypothetical would not be so happily embraced, I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: The Electoral College
(22-12-2016 02:57 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(19-12-2016 10:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  The question is, is the potential fall-out from having a buffoon like Trump running the country into the ground more than the fall-out described? Speaking from experience, if you've identified a snake, rather kill it. Everyone knew that Zuma was bad news before he ever got into office, even his apologists had to resort to saying things like "lets give him a chance". Same with Trump.
We are assigning too much power to the Executive Office - where's the checks and balances in the description of your fear in this post???

Is it at all possible that the founder's, because of the lack of technology and educated man-power, that they did not know how to properly organize the government???

I agree that the constitution of 1787 was an honorable charter – it was designed to organize an industrious economic union, as never before; and to end slavery. It worked, but it was not designed for environmental economics, and social desegregation. It is absurd to believe that it is anything near what the founders would generate with the technology and educated man-power that we have today. If they had the telephone and mail transportation systems that were in service a hundred years ago, you can safely bet that they would have organized a network of representatives from the municipal councils, and a network of the state legislatures for the senate. If they had known how to organize the executive departments, they would have done so; and not leave it to the exercise of crony appointments.

If they had known how to organize the judiciary, they would have done so. If they had known that criminal prosecution needed to be organized and separated from the other three branches, they would have done so. If they had known that a central bank was inevitable and how to organize it, they would have done so. If they had known how to organize a budget, they would have done so.

We know how to do these things, now.

no, clearly no humans anywhere do know several of those things such as actually organize prosecution or judiciary systems.

Though they did also organize it to change and in various periods it changed. Some early like the judicial system figuring out itself what it was gonna do and not do or the executive taking more power because of economic strife and war.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: