pop 0 #76 November 29, 2007 QuoteAfter all, our system of government is a representative republic, NOT a democracy. That I agree with. However when we invade other countries, we do not spread the word of a representative republic. We spread the word of democracy. And this is where I have the issue with the way thew current EC works. We claim democracy, but we do not vote in a democratic fashion. Edited: I am adding this to elaborate on voting in a "democratic fashion". When I stand in line to vote be it in CA or in TX (these are the only 2 states I have any experience voting in, so I speak only from that experience)...if I am voting in a "democratic fashion" I will NOT know who is going to win my state. Currently before I ever cast my vote I already know the result. That's not democracy or even a representative republic...not in this case. Now when we get the opportunity to vote at any other level of government we get to do it in a "democratic fashion". That shuold be the standrad for national elections as well.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #77 November 29, 2007 QuoteYou got it written backwards - the basis of our government is the reason the EC is structured as it is. You are absolutly correct in that statement. The EC as it is set up today worked for our founding fathers, but the world has changed dramatically since then, and so has the way we live our lives. Today is not the same as it was in the 1700's. As a result, we need to adapt our current voting practices.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 November 29, 2007 While I think I understand your point, the same logic could say "my vote didn't count" anytime the person you voted for didn't win.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #79 November 29, 2007 QuoteWhile I think I understand your point, the same logic could say "my vote didn't count" anytime the person you voted for didn't win. That's not the case, and that's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that I already know who gets my vote before I cast it (TX and CA). Whether the person I voted for wins or not is not the issue. The issue is that the way the current EC is set up it creates a situation where I know who will win this state. I just dont want to know who will win beore I vote. Does that make more sense?7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #80 November 29, 2007 Quote After all, our system of government is a representative republic, NOT a democracy. Then we need to stop foisting that shit on other people.. if we dont believe or follow it. We should be setting up REPUBLICS so that THEIR power elite will be the only ones who really count..in elections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #81 November 29, 2007 Quote You are absolutly correct in that statement. The EC as it is set up today worked for our founding fathers, but the world has changed dramatically since then, and so has the way we live our lives. Today is not the same as it was in the 1700's. I think conservatives as a whole would much rather be living back in the 1700's.... Well at least the RICH ones... and the White ones....and the male ones..... and those who own property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #82 November 29, 2007 QuoteAs a result, we need to adapt our current voting practices. My point is that you can't ONLY adapt our current voting practices. If you really feel this way, then you need to overhaul the entire system accordingly because you are saying that the original basis for the vision is not applicable. I'm not advocating either position with this post (if I did, I'd still side with the concept of state's rights though), just pointing out the myopic viewpoint of those that are only concerned with this very small piece and ignoring the rest. It indicates to me that they do not have a clear grasp of what they are really saying. (or they do, but want to (in stealth) ratchet their way to a completely different concept) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #83 November 29, 2007 Quote just pointing out the myopic viewpoint of those that are only concerned with this very small piece and ignoring the rest. It indicates to me that they do not have a clear grasp of what they are really saying. This thread of posts is specifically focused on the EC. We can make anoother post to cover the rest of the pieces.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #84 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWrong. You didn't read the article, did you? The mathematics does not lie, nor is it a matter of opinion. Your math can be countered with my math. 3/population of Alaska versus 54/population of California. If it takes that much text to disprove the simple truths, it's questionable. "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong." - H.L. Mencken Ignorance is bliss. The article I linked is the most thorough analysis of block voting systems that has been done. And I'll counter with Occam's Razor. One thing is clear - switching to a popular vote will certainly increase the power of the large population states at the expense of small ones. So if I'm right, they lose power and would never agree to it. If you're right, they fall even further behind and would never agree to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 November 29, 2007 Quote But here you're assuming that a candidate will win the coasts by a big enough margin to make flyover country irrelevant. If the candidates are reasonably closely matched on the coasts then middle america would be the swing - if one guy goes there and the other doesn't... When have those coasts been evenly matched? In the current polarized state of affairs, the coasts are strongly Democratic and the interior is strongly Republican. The Southern population centers (Texas) are Republican, aside from a very even Florida, and the Northern ones (Ill, MA) are Democrat, with Ohio being the dead locked. We could really simplify the election by just counting votes in OH and FL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 November 29, 2007 QuoteThat's not the case, and that's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that I already know who gets my vote before I cast it (TX and CA). That's true for any measure that polls at the 60% level. And you're thinking very short term. 1992 may have been the first time in a long time that California voted Democrat, despite having a Democratic lead state legislature. It has turned with Clinton, and with the current President rather transparent in his favoritism against the state. (Had Shrub been less of a jackass, the GOP could conceivable win again, but I think he's fucked it up for 2 or 3 more elections minimum) Texas had a Democratic governor not too long ago as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #87 November 29, 2007 QuoteWe could really simplify the election by just counting votes in OH and FL. And that brings me back to my point. The way the EC is set up today, it is irrelevant who I choose to vote for. My vote really doesnt count in Texas since the outcome, no matter who I vote for, is already known.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #88 November 29, 2007 Quotethe GOP could conceivable win again, but I think he's fucked it up for 2 or 3 more elections minimum) that's rich - Cali's don't have more than a 4 year memory span ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #89 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteAs a result, we need to adapt our current voting practices. My point is that you can't ONLY adapt our current voting practices. If you really feel this way, then you need to overhaul the entire system accordingly because you are saying that the original basis for the vision is not applicable. You'll have to flesh that out a bit. Apparently I'm being sophmoric and myopic, but please humor me and explain why we "CAN'T" consider one aspect of a system out-dated without considering the entire system faulty? I can think of many systems in which one component can be upgraded to accomodate modern technology without discarding all other components. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #90 November 29, 2007 Here are two solutions: 1. Each state gets 1 EC vote. If we are United States of America, then why should one state have more say than another? Based on population you say? Well we are not the United People of America. 2. Break up the EC votes. If one candidate gets 51% of popular votes, then he/she gets 51% of EC votes. That is more fair, since the other 49% of EC votes go the the less popular candidate for that state, and the 49% still have a say in the national outcome (which is not the case today.) In this case however, every state needs to do this to stay fair. ***Adding one more thing. Currently the EC voters have the right to vote for the cadidate they think is the right candidate, even if the popular vote within their district tells them to vote otherwise. In both of my porposed solutions we have to do away with EC voters having this right.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #91 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWrong. You didn't read the article, did you? The mathematics does not lie, nor is it a matter of opinion. Your math can be countered with my math. 3/population of Alaska versus 54/population of California. If it takes that much text to disprove the simple truths, it's questionable. "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong." - H.L. Mencken Ignorance is bliss. The article I linked is the most thorough analysis of block voting systems that has been done. And I'll counter with Occam's Razor. . Counter all you like. Occam's razor doesn't apply here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #92 November 29, 2007 Quote2. Break up the EC votes. If one candidate gets 51% of popular votes, then he/she gets 51% of EC votes. That is more fair, since the other 49% of EC votes go the the less popular candidate for that state, and the 49% still have a say in the national outcome (which is not the case today.) In this case however, every state needs to do this to stay fair. pop - use the search function. We've been talking about this alternatives for months. option 2, applied universally, is unlikely to change anything. In a close election those extra 2 EC votes will make the difference. It a not close election, it won't matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #93 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuote2. Break up the EC votes. If one candidate gets 51% of popular votes, then he/she gets 51% of EC votes. That is more fair, since the other 49% of EC votes go the the less popular candidate for that state, and the 49% still have a say in the national outcome (which is not the case today.) In this case however, every state needs to do this to stay fair. pop - use the search function. We've been talking about this alternatives for months. option 2, applied universally, is unlikely to change anything. In a close election those extra 2 EC votes will make the difference. It a not close election, it won't matter. All I am saying is that under the current system the 49% I mention in my example have their voice misrepresented.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 November 29, 2007 Quoteoption 2, applied universally, each, independent state, can do it any way they want If you force them all to do it, then that's not constitutional Option 2 is just pop pitching another version of the popular vote, except it avoids needing recounts due to "almost ties" as it segments the vote into a discrete odd count. With the 50/50 split in the world, you'd also need to eliminate the minimum number of Electoral Votes and just go with the winner. It's a silly concept that's just a disguised popular vote. If that's that point, just go with the popular vote. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #95 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteoption 2, applied universally, each, independent state, can do it any way they want If you force them all to do it, then that's not constitutional Option 2 is just pop pitching another version of the popular vote, except it avoids needing recounts due to "almost ties" as it segments the vote into a discrete odd count. With the 50/50 split in the world, you'd also need to eliminate the minimum number of Electoral Votes and just go with the winner. It's a silly concept that's just a disguised popular vote. If that's that point, just go with the popular vote. What do you think about Option 1.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #96 November 29, 2007 QuoteApparently I'm being sophmoric and myopic, but please humor me sophomoric because you purposely reversed the justification of the system from it's basis just to try to oversimplify a position and ask a strawman type argument. myopic - well, if strictest sense, it means focusing too closely on just one aspect of a much larger issue neither is insulting (because you did it on purpose), just descriptive of the argument. Quotehumor me and explain why we "CAN'T" consider one aspect of a system out-dated without considering the entire system faulty we sure can do that - I consider it would be a crappy fix in this instance as the EC is purposely designed to reflect the intent of the structure of this government. I don't think this one fits the bill of a separate/independent component. "modern technology" has nothing to do with it other than a tangential justification that adds no value to the discussion. Actually, I'd just like to see this discussion handled in the context of the framer's intent and why that should be changed. I don't see that in the thread even if some people are trying to do that. In the end, a bunch of people don't "like" it so obviously it must be wrong. (notice I didn't say "don't overhaul" the system - just "if" this part really needs changing, then it indicates a flawed overall structure too. So we should be very certain and not knee jerk due to uninformed "feelings") Humored? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 November 29, 2007 QuoteWhat do you think about Option 1. 50 vote total? (maybe DC breaks a tie?) meh - you guys are "all or nothing". the framers tried to balance out the two conflicting positions - you are just throwing out each extreme If a state wants to cast one vote, they sure can do that. 1 elector votes for the state, the rest abstain. It's in the right of each individual state to choose to do that also. But not to force the other states to follow suit. I don't think the citizens of such a state would like that either. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #98 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteoption 2, applied universally, each, independent state, can do it any way they want If you force them all to do it, then that's not constitutional It's constitutional if implemented by amendment. The only purpose for a single state like California to do it would be idiocy - if the minority party can convince the people it would be better to dilute their power by 40%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 November 29, 2007 Quote What do you think about Option 1. Very little. It would make 100% of the votes in California meaningless. You're complaining about only 40% being renderered pointless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #100 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuote What do you think about Option 1. Very little. It would make 100% of the votes in California meaningless. You're complaining about only 40% being renderered pointless. How so? if 60% vote one way...thn we are still misrepresenting 40% of the people. But you missed my point. Since we are the United States, and not United People of America, then why shuold a state get more then 1 vote. After all arent all 50 states equal? And since we are not the United People of America, why does it matter how many people live in each state?7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
