Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Nov 2016, 11:42 am

some want the electoral votes to be made for Clinton because she won the majority. Those are ignorant and stupid people. If you want FUTURE elections changed, you may have a point but I am a fan of the system as it is. Just look at the electoral map and you can see why. Clinton (Democrats) hit the large urban areas while missing the rest of the country. This results in advertising heavily in a few areas only. The northeast corridor, Chicago, California, Texas and Florida. The rural areas and most of the central part of the nation get ignored. But the argument against this is similar, only the "battleground" states get hit hard in the present system (and why Clinton lost Wisconsin) while the rest of the country gets ignored. While both have their problems, the current system doesn't ignore a "group" or "class" of people, it ignores entire states but does hit all in those states concentrated on. A popular vote will ignore many entire states while also ignoring those in rural areas.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Nov 2016, 2:51 pm

There is nothing Constitutional to compel the Electors to stand by the election result in their state. They may be party supporters, some states may make them take an oath, but they can, and have, voted otherwise and there is no comeback.

If, and it seems still like a big if, but if 40 Electors switched their votes to Clinton, that would be lawful and she would be President. That alone makes it a democratically awkward process.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Nov 2016, 6:50 am

Some states (about half) have pledges requiring them to vote a specific way, some have fines for failure to vote a specific way, and lastly, the electors are chosen by the party that won. If the election were won by a vote or two, I could see this possibly coming in to play but not with what, about 40 votes to spare? ...Not gonna happen!

Myself, I like the concept but would like to do away with actual votes. Win the state, win the number of votes. No need for any actual votes cast by any people. I would also like to do away with the way a tie is handled (congress decides president, senate decides vp or vice-versa?) in the case of a tie I would then go to the popular vote. But that's just me
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 15 Nov 2016, 7:01 am

GMTom wrote:some want the electoral votes to be made for Clinton because she won the majority. Those are ignorant and stupid people. If you want FUTURE elections changed, you may have a point but I am a fan of the system as it is. Just look at the electoral map and you can see why. Clinton (Democrats) hit the large urban areas while missing the rest of the country. This results in advertising heavily in a few areas only. The northeast corridor, Chicago, California, Texas and Florida. The rural areas and most of the central part of the nation get ignored. But the argument against this is similar, only the "battleground" states get hit hard in the present system (and why Clinton lost Wisconsin) while the rest of the country gets ignored. While both have their problems, the current system doesn't ignore a "group" or "class" of people, it ignores entire states but does hit all in those states concentrated on. A popular vote will ignore many entire states while also ignoring those in rural areas.


Yes, also, if the rule prior to the election was popular vote, the two candidates would have campaigned differently. Trump would have focused on turnout in Texas and hit rural areas in New York, Illinois and California, to name just a few examples, which he didn't bother with because of the clear results in those states.

In fact, this election demonstrates the importance of the electoral college. The results are clear. Those 35 states which we fly over have now been heard and will not be ignored by the Democrats in the future.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Nov 2016, 12:24 pm

GMTom wrote:Some states (about half) have pledges requiring them to vote a specific way, some have fines for failure to vote a specific way,
All of which are not enforceable, and would not actually stop an elector being unfaithful.

and lastly, the electors are chosen by the party that won.
True, but many in the GOP opposed Trump, and unfaithful voters have happened in recent elections.

If the election were won by a vote or two, I could see this possibly coming in to play but not with what, about 40 votes to spare? ...Not gonna happen!
Oh, I am well aware that it is incredibly unlikely, but then again this a weird year already. His cabinet and high level picks might turn a few off.

Myself, I like the concept but would like to do away with actual votes. Win the state, win the number of votes. No need for any actual votes cast by any people. I would also like to do away with the way a tie is handled (congress decides president, senate decides vp or vice-versa?) in the case of a tie I would then go to the popular vote. But that's just me
I think it makes more sense if you go back to the idea of the House being more representative. The gerrymandering (which yes, both main parties benefit from) means that in some years, like 2012, the party with most votes has fewer seats. I had the idea that the House was meant to be the most democratic (and with frequent all out elections that would sway with popular opinion), the Senate at a State level and so less democratic and with less frequent and offset elections would not swing as much, and the Presidency a combination of the two.

It would make sense to either just have a majority vote decide the Presidency or, as you suggest, use it as a way to decide if the College does not show a majority.

RJ, sure, if the rules were different, then the election would be. And more Americans should make themselves aware of the rules before they vote. Of course there is a move between States for them to allow - once enough agree to get 270 Electors - to get behind the winner of the popular vote. And that would be Constitutional, as the basic rule is that the States decide - and in the early days popular votes were not used in all states anyway.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Nov 2016, 12:34 pm

what about a "blend' of the two?
Use the electoral system but alter it so you need to win slightly more than half plus one.
Instead of 270 maybe make it say 280?
In the case that is not reached, then we go to the popular vote?

(not thinking about the details only shooting out an idea as it hit me but this SEEMS like it takes the best of both worlds?)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Nov 2016, 2:48 pm

We could follow the Constitution and say that if a certain number of electoral votes are not received, then it would go to the House of Representatives (which elected by popular vote of the states).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Nov 2016, 10:55 am

bbauska wrote:We could follow the Constitution and say that if a certain number of electoral votes are not received, then it would go to the House of Representatives (which elected by popular vote of the states).

Problem there is that the House does not actually accurately reflect the popular vote, twice in recent times the party with the lower national vote has ended up in a majority.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Nov 2016, 2:20 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:We could follow the Constitution and say that if a certain number of electoral votes are not received, then it would go to the House of Representatives (which elected by popular vote of the states).

Problem there is that the House does not actually accurately reflect the popular vote, twice in recent times the party with the lower national vote has ended up in a majority.


Are you saying that we should not follow the Constitution? There is ways to bring the change being asked for. Make an amendment come to fruition. If that occurs, I will support that.

Personally it sounds like sour grapes.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2016, 7:42 am

no kidding the exact results could be different, if you want it to be the same, then you go to popular vote. But the popular vote brings with it some negatives as we discussed.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 21 Nov 2016, 4:13 pm

Although I do a jig every time I think of the criminal losing this election and another jig as I observe the stunned liberal media not knowing where to begin to spin why she lost, I am 100% for dismantling the electoral college.

I am a popular vote kind of guy. You know, the will of the people and all that. But wait, I forgot, we're not living in a democracy, so I guess it doesn't matter what we do. Only the filthy rich will be able to run for president, financially supported by the filthy rich and their lobbyists and re-inforced by a filthy rich media on either side of the spectrum. It's a miracle the country even continues to operate. Perhaps a tribute to local politics I don't know.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Nov 2016, 6:44 am

You can certainly be a popular vote fan, nothing wrong with that. But Trump won by the rules and if this were a popular vote you can't simply say Clinton would have won because both would have campaigned differently. The current system has some benefits and it has some negatives but it is most certainly "fair" and the will of the people was met based on the way the system was set up. Places like California and New York would have had many more Trump votes, Clinton would have more votes from Texas had this been a popular vote,

But your claim we are not living in a Democracy.... no kidding, your assumption we were is a bit foolish, A Democracy has people vote on laws and vote for President, etc. We NEVER were a "Democracy" and never will be, we are a Constitutional Federal Republic and always have been. To assume we are/were a Democracy is just a bit ignorant of the facts.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Nov 2016, 4:07 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Although I do a jig every time I think of the criminal losing this election and another jig as I observe the stunned liberal media not knowing where to begin to spin why she lost, I am 100% for dismantling the electoral college.

I am a popular vote kind of guy. You know, the will of the people and all that. But wait, I forgot, we're not living in a democracy, so I guess it doesn't matter what we do. Only the filthy rich will be able to run for president, financially supported by the filthy rich and their lobbyists and re-inforced by a filthy rich media on either side of the spectrum. It's a miracle the country even continues to operate. Perhaps a tribute to local politics I don't know.


The funniest thing to me: Clinton had ALL the advantages:

1. Money
2. Demographics
3. 242 electoral votes "locked in" before we even started voting.
4. Popularity of President Obama.
5. The best surrogates.
6. The media cheering her on.
7. The worst candidate in history as her opponent.
8. A robust economic recovery (or so they say)

I'm sure others could add more advantages . . . and yet . . . she LOST!

It still makes me smile.

Sure, we're stuck with Trump, but . . . SHE LOST!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Nov 2016, 2:16 pm

dag
I am a popular vote kind of guy. You know, the will of the people and all that. But wait, I forgot, we're not living in a democracy, so I guess it doesn't matter what we do. Only the filthy rich will be able to run for president, financially supported by the filthy rich and their lobbyists and re-inforced by a filthy rich media on either side of the spectrum. It's a miracle the country even continues to operate. Perhaps a tribute to local politics I don't know.

I seem to remember you voted for Trump because he was the proverbial "hand grenade", going to shake things up....
So far, where are the indications that things are changing in a revoltutionary sense?

The only way the system becomes more reactive to the needs of the voters, is if big money comes out of the political system. If Trump were willing to move to public financing of elections .... then you'd have the grenade you want Dag.
Until then, massive amount of money will dominate the system, and lobbyists and donors will control the agenda.
Trump promised a simple tax code. As long as the code is used by congresssment and senators as a way to deliver goodies to lobbyists ....
If he did those two things ..... the system would be permanently changed to be more responsive.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Nov 2016, 2:35 pm

Welcome back, RickyP. I was wondering if you were going to show after the election. I am glad you are still with us.