IGX

Time to do away with it. Why do we need a bunch of knuckleheads to get together and vote?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FliGdEGBoIw[/youtube]

No idea what the video is about.

Once the votes are in, it should just be a math problem. Either one person-one vote, or one person = 3.6 votes if you live in Wyoming and =1 vote if New York or California. Also, proportional within states rather than winner-take-all. That way California republicans and South Carolina democrats get to play too.

The reflex to ditch the EC is one of the most staggeringly ill informed notions in most cases...but it sounds like you're talking about something between the EC system and a pure democracy...go on......

EDIT:

Deleted an important bit. This is really a states rights issue and a power of the executive issue. We've leaned too far away from the one and too far towards the other starting with probably going back to Kennedy and getting worse with every one that followed.

nafod wrote:No idea what the video is about.

Once the votes are in, it should just be a math problem. Either one person-one vote, or one person = 3.6 votes if you live in Wyoming and =1 vote if New York or California. Also, proportional within states rather than winner-take-all. That way California republicans and South Carolina democrats get to play too.

The point of the video gets to the real reason people want the change. The reason we have an electoral college was to keep big states (New York and Virginia in particular) from dominating the country. The reason it still exists is the same.

BD makes a great point-- states should have the right to allocate electors as they choose.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:No idea what the video is about.

Once the votes are in, it should just be a math problem. Either one person-one vote, or one person = 3.6 votes if you live in Wyoming and =1 vote if New York or California. Also, proportional within states rather than winner-take-all. That way California republicans and South Carolina democrats get to play too.

The point of the video gets to the real reason people want the change. The reason we have an electoral college was to keep big states (New York and Virginia in particular) from dominating the country. The reason it still exists is the same.

BD makes a great point-- states should have the right to allocate electors as they choose.

I can't argue with that. It says in the Constitution Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...

But you can still allocate the votes within a state however you see fit, I don't really care about that. The point is, we don't need these intermediaries called electors anymore. They are just an opportunity to f@#$ things up.

Or if we do have electors, we should recognize that they are sentient beings capable of making judgments, and not make up some law that then forces them to vote in one way, which is stupid and probably unconstitutional anyway.

nafod wrote:I don't like it = must be unconstitutional

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... sions.html

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:I don't like it = must be unconstitutional

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... sions.html

That's retarded. I am saying while it is Constitutional, it is time for changing it. It is a tradition unhindered by progress.

Goofy laws like states mandating electors have to vote in certain ways show people agree with me.

But tell me, why do you think having actual, sentient, human, fallible electors tasked as middle men for the voting process make sense now? I'm not talking about the allocation of votes to states, just the choice of electors.

Politicians will quickly "game" whatever system we have. Gerrymandering is another giant cluster that is corrupt as hell. No idea how it "should be done" but what we have now if pretty much a mess.

Democracy is a mistake.

The point of the video gets to the real reason people want the change. The reason we have an electoral college was to keep big states (New York and Virginia in particular) from dominating the country. The reason it still exists is the same.

Technically speaking, "the reason we have an electoral college" is to prop up the power of slave states who would not have been competitive with free states without the Electoral College and 3/5 Compromise.

The idea that it's needed to "keep big states from dominating the country" is hilarious - it's always framed this way, as a bulwark against... something - but that conversely means that small states are given an outsized influence over the process (as is obvious).

So you have one system (the Electoral College) that values individual votes differently - someone in Wyoming's vote is worth ~4X that of a California voter, inherently prejudicing the system toward places where people don't live. If it's right and proper to ensure that California and Texas don't dominate national politics, why is it right and proper to ensure that small states do?

Why shouldn't the places where people actually live carry as much value as places where they don't?

The idea that population centers would be all that matter fails on its face. A direct election would require that a President speak to and care about the entire country - the votes of a farmer in Idaho would literally be of the same value as the votes of a programmer in Silicon Valley. Candidates would have to pay attention to the needs and desires of people everywhere - modifying your Republican message so that California is only a 55-45 loss instead of 65-35; modifying your Democratic message so that you don't lose the entire middle of the country 65-35, ensuring that rural eastern California (deep red) actually has a voice just as urban Texas (deep blue) would.

milosz wrote:

The point of the video gets to the real reason people want the change. The reason we have an electoral college was to keep big states (New York and Virginia in particular) from dominating the country. The reason it still exists is the same.

Technically speaking, "the reason we have an electoral college" is to prop up the power of slave states who would not have been competitive with free states without the Electoral College and 3/5 Compromise.

The idea that it's needed to "keep big states from dominating the country" is hilarious - it's always framed this way, as a bulwark against... something - but that conversely means that small states are given an outsized influence over the process (as is obvious).

So we're a republic not a democracy? Whoa.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:I don't like it = must be unconstitutional

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... sions.html

That's retarded. I am saying while it is Constitutional, it is time for changing it. It is a tradition unhindered by progress.

Goofy laws like states mandating electors have to vote in certain ways show people agree with me.

But tell me, why do you think having actual, sentient, human, fallible electors tasked as middle men for the voting process make sense now? I'm not talking about the allocation of votes to states, just the choice of electors.

Choosing electors is a party function, the benefit of having electors who can change their minds is in the best interest of political parties.

For those who need it: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... ics-parent

Turdacious wrote: So we're a republic not a democracy? Whoa.

This remains one of the more epically stupid lines in American politics.
We're a democracy and a republic... we're a (sound the trumpets) democratic republic.

Congrats on making it a little stupider by conflating republic with federalism (we would still be a republic without the electoral college, we'd still be a republic without states at all actually).

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: So we're a republic not a democracy? Whoa.

This remains one of the more epically stupid lines in American politics.
We're a democracy and a republic... we're a (sound the trumpets) democratic republic.

Congrats on making it a little stupider by conflating republic with federalism (we would still be a republic without the electoral college, we'd still be a republic without states at all actually).

And you're trying to quibble about small points to cover ignorance of bigger ones. Suggesting that small states should cede political advantages to larger ones so larger ones can benefit is stupid.

Turdacious wrote: Suggesting that small states should cede political advantages to larger ones so larger ones can benefit is stupid.

Regardless of your bent on the issue...this is the crux. It's gonna take a lot more than whinging to get 2/3rds of the states to self immolate by way of a Constitutional Amendment. It's not even academic at this point. Tweaking its practices could be a great area for discussion , but it's preposterous to think in terms of eliminating the EC.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:I don't like it = must be unconstitutional

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... sions.html

That's retarded. I am saying while it is Constitutional, it is time for changing it. It is a tradition unhindered by progress.

Goofy laws like states mandating electors have to vote in certain ways show people agree with me.

But tell me, why do you think having actual, sentient, human, fallible electors tasked as middle men for the voting process make sense now? I'm not talking about the allocation of votes to states, just the choice of electors.

...the benefit of having electors who can change their minds is in the best interest of political parties.

How so?

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:I don't like it = must be unconstitutional

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... sions.html

That's retarded. I am saying while it is Constitutional, it is time for changing it. It is a tradition unhindered by progress.

Goofy laws like states mandating electors have to vote in certain ways show people agree with me.

But tell me, why do you think having actual, sentient, human, fallible electors tasked as middle men for the voting process make sense now? I'm not talking about the allocation of votes to states, just the choice of electors.

...the benefit of having electors who can change their minds is in the best interest of political parties.

How so?

Off the top of my head -person elected dies/gets killed and the party doesn't want the VP to be POTUS, person elected does something horrible the party's uncomfortable with, tool for political parties to influence the winner, etc...

Turdacious wrote: And you're trying to quibble about small points to cover ignorance of bigger ones.

Wait, so you thought "WE'RE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY HAR HAR" was a sweet gotcha line until it was pointed out that we're both and that it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, now it's a "quibble about small points"?

Suggesting that small states should cede political advantages to larger ones so larger ones can benefit is stupid.

Well, this is loaded (like a dirty diaper).

It's funny that you try to ascribe ignorance here - given that I had to explain the democracy and republic thing to you, I daresay it's fairly obvious that if one of us is civics-ignorant, it's not me.

Why is it not "stupid" to "suggest that large states should cede political advantages to smaller ones so smaller ones can benefit"? That's the zero sum reality of the Electoral College - by its nature it acts as affirmative action for small states.

Why are small states inherently more valuable than large states to you?

The entire question of small states ceding advantages is, of course, highly questionable, as I've already covered. A vote in Montana is no less valuable than a vote in California under a direct election. California would not be advantaged or given power in this scenario, it would simply no longer be punished for being large and valuable. Montana and Idaho and Wyoming would still be inherently valuable, because those votes would still, obviously count.

(As I already said, the other part of this is that it would require Presidents to govern the entire nation rather than for a few swing states and his base.)

Abolishing the Senate literally involves small states ceding power - which I'd like to see but is even less likely than doing away with the EC so it's not worth discussing.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Suggesting that small states should cede political advantages to larger ones so larger ones can benefit is stupid.

Regardless of your bent on the issue...this is the crux. It's gonna take a lot more than whinging to get 2/3rds of the states to self immolate by way of a Constitutional Amendment. It's not even academic at this point. Tweaking its practices could be a great area for discussion , but it's preposterous to think in terms of eliminating the EC.

It's an entirely theoretical discussion, nothing is going to happen in tweaking, reform, elimination, etc. until global thermonuclear war turns us into a dozen rump states ruled by mutant overlords.

As Texas and other states with growing minority populations turn purple over the next 15 years, the shoe will be on the other foot with Republicans disadvantaged overall in the EC and most liberals and Democratic centrists will forget their flirtation with change while Republicans will suddenly come to Jesus on the issue.

Doesn't change the fact that both will be right at different times - a national direct election is better for the country. One person, one vote and an Executive Branch beholden to the entire country.

milosz wrote: A vote in Montana is no less valuable than a vote in California under a direct election.

True, it's just less valuable than it is now. Suggesting that they should voluntarily give that advantage up is silly. Whether I like that idea or not is irrelevant.

Okay, and where did I discuss the wisdom of voluntary blah blah blah.

We're talking about the merits of the system or alternates - if you admit there is no merit to the system but "that's the way it is" cool story, but why say anything? The sky is also blue and water is wet.

I am sure if we were intentionally importing the same number of reliably 2/3 voting republicans as we currently are importing reliably voting democrats he would feel the same about immigration and the EC.

Because it is just the right thing to do on a disinterested and intellectual and moral level.

I mean, muh slave owners and muh rednecks.

I also love how it is all so passive: america is becoming more brown.

As if it weren't a plan.

This cunt just can't be patient and let the admittedly brilliant plan play out.

He has to force the uniparty and final disenfranchisement of whites on them.

Show those bigots who is boss.

milosz wrote:Okay, and where did I discuss the wisdom of voluntary blah blah blah.

We're talking about the merits of the system or alternates - if you admit there is no merit to the system but "that's the way it is" cool story, but why say anything? The sky is also blue and water is wet.

I don't think he's saying that. There is inherent merit in tiered voting. Compared to Parliamentary systems the EC is a far more direct read of the will of the people WRT the executive.

If anything the current EC angst, (theTRUMP problem if you will) tells us why populism is so dangerous and why tiered voting is so important. The very last thing this country needs is MORE direct influence on governance by an ignorant and overbusy self loathing electorate.