News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

End The Electoral College

Started by Cavebear, November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009

Quote from: Atheon on November 18, 2016, 10:48:53 AMThere should be other mechanisms in place to ensure that dangerous demagogues don't get voted in.
Like colleges.  /snark

Jack89

I like this guys take on it.

"We aren't one big pure democracy, by the founders intent, we 50 smaller autonomous states.  50 smaller democratic republics who have control over most aspects of their daily lives, with a federal government who provides general welfare and defense."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VIhAN5ULXk

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Jack89 on November 19, 2016, 05:15:52 PM
I like this guys take on it.

"We aren't one big pure democracy, by the founders intent, we 50 smaller autonomous states.  50 smaller democratic republics who have control over most aspects of their daily lives, with a federal government who provides general welfare and defense.
That's how it was conceived, but in practice the United States works as a single entity, with the states acting as very large counties.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

reasonist

The guy is wrong on many levels. He compares a baseball game to presidential elections? Regardless of hits, the most runs win. There is no voting on the outcome.
I just checked, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.4 million. So one and a half million votes are blatantly ignored. That's like the voters of Utah and Ohio combined!
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities
Voltaire

Johan

Quote from: _Xenu_ on November 19, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
The money needed to actually run in all fifty states would be much more than whats normal now,
About 126 million people voted. Hillary spent close to twice as much on her campaign as Trump. But she only got 1.3 million more votes. In other words, the amount Trump spent per vote is nowhere near as much as the amount Hillary spent per vote. Which would seem to suggest that if Trump needed to count on the popular vote in order to win he still would not have had to spend nearly as much as Hillary did. Which kind of takes the fight right out of the whole popular vote elections would cost too much argument.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

Jack89

Quote from: reasonist on November 19, 2016, 06:44:16 PM
The guy is wrong on many levels. He compares a baseball game to presidential elections? Regardless of hits, the most runs win. There is no voting on the outcome.
I just checked, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.4 million. So one and a half million votes are blatantly ignored. That's like the voters of Utah and Ohio combined!
I think both candidates would have run a much different race if the popular vote was the goal.  In retrospect, it seems Trump's campaign ran a pretty clever game. 


reasonist

Quote from: Jack89 on November 19, 2016, 08:19:17 PM
I think both candidates would have run a much different race if the popular vote was the goal.  In retrospect, it seems Trump's campaign ran a pretty clever game. 



That he did. Or the electorate is that dense to buy into a fact free campaign.
My own feeling is that he won't last 4 years. The guy is uncontrollable. Give him enough rope and he will hang himself eventually. People his age don't change...
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities
Voltaire

Jason Harvestdancer

There's an easier solution.

To end the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment.  But you can eliminate the disparity between who many people per elector a much easier way.

The constitution says we can't have more than one rep per 30,000 population.  Currently it averages about one rep per 700,000 population.  It has been frozen at 435 for about a century.  I don't think that ratio is what the authors intended.  We could double the number of reps and still not get near the constitutional limit.  Doing so would increase the number of electors by the same amount, and thereby flatten out the differences in number of voters per elector.

Actually we could increase the number of reps by a factor of 10 and not get near the constitutional limit, and further flatten the number of voters per elector.

As for full elimination and direct popular vote, I'm imagining the nightmare of a nationwide recount.  Both Hillary and Trump got about 47%.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Baruch

Recount as many times as necessary, until None Of The Above wins ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Jason Harvestdancer

Now there's an idea I could get behind - none of the above clearly got the most votes.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Baruch

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 20, 2016, 09:27:39 PM
Now there's an idea I could get behind - none of the above clearly got the most votes.

Time to change the topic ... squirrel!

How about how the French do things?  Sarkozy is out, in his early primary.  Will LePen win the general election?  Will Merkel become the permanent Chancellor of Germany?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: _Xenu_ on November 19, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
People have been complaining about the electoral college since Al Gore in 2000, but getting rid of it would be a really bad idea. The problem with moving to the popular vote is corruption. The money needed to actually run in all fifty states would be much more than whats normal now, and would give corporations and lobbyists even more say in government than they already have. Getting rid of the electoral college makes sense at a glance, but would have serious unintended consequences.

So you are suggesting that fighting in 6 States is better for democracy than fighting in all 50?

That 1 vote in Wyoming should be equal to 1.3 in California?

The same money would be spread to 50 States, not just one.

Public financing would solve your concern.  And limit non-campaign groups spending.  Money is not the same thing as free speech.  It can be allowed, with limits.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 10:42:16 PM
So you are suggesting that fighting in 6 States is better for democracy than fighting in all 50?

That 1 vote in Wyoming should be equal to 1.3 in California?

The same money would be spread to 50 States, not just one.

Public financing would solve your concern.  And limit non-campaign groups spending.  Money is not the same thing as free speech.  It can be allowed, with limits.

Yes, lets change things so that Presidential candidates only need to campaign in the 10 largest metro areas.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2016, 07:13:49 AM
Yes, lets change things so that Presidential candidates only need to campaign in the 10 largest metro areas.

It WOULD mean that a State with almost no one in it (like Wyoming) wouldn't matter as much as just New York City (about 12 times the number of people).  But isn't that the point?  That's where the people ARE.  And we don't vote by acerage, but people.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 06:18:42 AM
It WOULD mean that a State with almost no one in it (like Wyoming) wouldn't matter as much as just New York City (about 12 times the number of people).  But isn't that the point?  That's where the people ARE.  And we don't vote by acerage, but people.

The US isn't a democracy ... that it is, is propaganda, to keep people voting for their own enslavement.  And I favor that.  Democracy was a failure and still is.

Be that as it may, as I posted elsewhere, I would be happy if we got rid of popular election of the P and VP, and had the Senate choose them for us.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.