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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Feb 2016, 10:08 am

bbauska
The majority voted for Prop 8 in California. RickyP, how did you feel about that? As I recall there was a "tyrrany of the majority" term bandied about.

Yes.
But that's also why there is a "Bill of Rights" in most democracies to protect minorities from expressions of the majority that trample on their rights as individuals.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 05 Feb 2016, 3:25 pm

My point was that if the good people of Georgia can manage this complexity, surely all Americans could.


How do you know that they manage it well? How many people that vote in the general election, vote in the runoffs?

An example of runoff elections: In Egypt--another semi-presidential system, or at least on paper--they ended up with Mr Morsi because a lot of the liberals in Egypt boycotted the first round and, therefore, in the second round they got stuck with a Muslim Brother, or Hosni Mubarak's last prime minister (the one that the military junta led by Field Marshall Ican'trememberhisname immediately fired). In that situation, they must know what it's like to be Americans. :laugh:

Changing the EC wouldn't change that in a large way.


Did you just do a 180 on your own argument??? That's rather unusual for you.

But that's also why there is a "Bill of Rights" in most democracies to protect minorities from expressions of the majority that trample on their rights as individuals.


NOW you're getting it! :smile:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Feb 2016, 9:14 am

hacker
How do you know that they manage it well?

There has never been a scandal like Florida 2000 in Georgia. (Since the end of Jim Crow)

Hacker
An example of runoff elections: In Egypt--another semi-presidential system, or at least on paper--they ended up with Mr Morsi because a lot of the liberals in Egypt boycotted the first round and, therefore, in the second round they got stuck with a Muslim Brother, or Hosni Mubarak's last prime minister (the one that the military junta led by Field Marshall Ican'trememberhisname immediately fired). In that situation, they must know what it's like to be Americans. :laugh
:
Sure. A first time election in an undemocratic nation, ruled by a military council. That's a great example to select.
Choose a nation with an established democratic tradition please.


Hacker
In that situation, they must know what it's like to be Americans. :laugh


What are you referring to?

Rickyp
Changing the EC wouldn't change that in a large way

hacker
Did you just do a 180 on your own argument??? That's rather unusual for you

I've changed my mind before. But not this time.
You fail to attach the line to the previous . The context is quite clear.
What came before
This is a cry for a more representative expression of the working and middle classes. And ts happening in both parties primary season. That its happening is an expression that what has come before has failed to met their needs

To clarify for you...
There is a clear expression among the current American electorate for a more responsive political system.
The EC is only a small contributor. But is it still a distortion of democracy and does contribute to the lack of response in the political system.
There are far bigger fish to fry than the EC. But it doesn't mean I am now arguing differently.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 06 Feb 2016, 5:04 pm

All right I think I understand what you mean, then. Egypt may not be a nation with an established democratic tradition, but human nature is the same.

So what would you suggest, then, to make it "more responsive"? proportional representation? something like Australia perhaps?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Feb 2016, 1:47 pm

hacker
So what would you suggest, then, to make it "more responsive"? proportional representation? something like Australia perhaps

Easiest, surest way: Eliminate private funding of elections. Every citizen should provide an annual vote, through their tax filing, of where they want their share of public funding of election campaigns to go ... Whatever budget has been set aside for all Federal elections should be provided to parties, who then must operate their election campaigns under a hard cap.
If ordinary people have control of the money that runs the campaigns, then parties will have to offer policies that will benefit them.
I'm also big of proportional representation in the House...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 08 Feb 2016, 7:09 pm

Nothing against my own countrymen, but when it comes to elections, we don't do complicated.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Feb 2016, 2:52 am

JimHackerMP wrote:Nothing against my own countrymen, but when it comes to elections, we don't do complicated.
[looks at Iowa Caucuses] yeah, right.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 09 Feb 2016, 3:19 am

Not everybody votes in the Iowa caucuses.

Tell ya what, guys: since I walked into a brier patch without some sort of protection for my hoo-hoo, politically speaking, I'll humor you. Let's assume we can revamp the US constitution. I'm not giving you emergency powers as dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae causa this time; but let's say you're on the committee. Now you can be the 21st century epitome of James Madison or Alexander Hamilton.

So let's rewrite the constitution. Since I'm really going to humor you, we'll do it without the electoral college. You got your point in, then. I'm not trying to change the subject, but I'm curious to see what you all think else is wrong with it.

I'd agree there's problems with the present constitution that need to be repaired. So let's repair them. The only "rules" are that it would be something that the American People would likely approve. So no naughty replacing the presidential democracy with a parliamentary one. But other than that...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 09 Feb 2016, 3:42 am

You ask me (I guess I'll start, feel free to either bring up some other constitutional point, or to continue with this one) I say there are a few things I can think of off the top of my head that need to be addressed:

gerrymandering
vacancies, judicial and congressional
congressional salaries
temporary commissions by president (when Congress not in session)
pork barrel (riders in massive, 10,000 page bill full of irrelevant bullshit)
budget battles between Congress & President
federal v. state "balance of power" (states rights, federal jurisdiction)

another suggestion, the new constitution (we don't have to actually "write" it but just the same) cannot be too long. The people have to be able to know what's in it, not just lawyers. We don't want it to look like Maryland's.

And we oughtn't mess with what's in the bill of rights. Let's let those problems be solved legislatively, else it'll get too controversial to get ratified. Special interests would try to defeat it. But that's a suggestion, I guess I can't really set any "rules". But I was thinking structurally here mostly.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Nov 2016, 11:33 am

I look at the Electoral College/Popular vote conflict as this:

A Soccer team has time of possession. That stat does not compute into goals. It plays a factor, but is not what the winning is based upon. It is goals for vs. goals against. Hence, the score in the paper 2-1 Hull City over Southampton.

http://www.espnfc.us/matchstats?gameId=450902
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Nov 2016, 11:42 am

I am not going to whine about the electoral college when Hillary only won by 200,000 votes in the popular vote. If we get an election where there is a several million vote difference then we will have to do something about it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Nov 2016, 8:26 pm

I saw this funny tweet from Trump in 2012:

"The electoral college is a disaster for America"
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Nov 2016, 6:58 pm

Well, a 2 million vote win--1.7% win in the popular vote. Now, I am starting to complain...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/op ... oogle.com/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Nov 2016, 9:32 am

complain all you like but it changes nothing. this is like complaining you lost a baseball game because your team had more home runs and more base runners, you struck out more opponents as well but the other team had more runs. Now you want to complain about your loss?

The "game" was clear, electoral votes was what would be used to win, the winner needed 270. Trump got that and then some, he WON. You can not complain about losing what was known ahead of time.
Based on electoral vote, the Republicans did nothing to try and gain any votes in California or New York (and other states, no doubt the Dem's did nothing in Montana or Wyoming, etc), nothing! If the vote were based on popular vote, no doubt they would have made efforts to gain some of those votes.

If future elections were changed to the popular vote, that would be fine but you can't change the rules after the contest was run using different rules. There are good reasons to do away with the Electoral system, there are good reasons to keep it as well. Bottom line, popular vote means nothing the way things are now!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Nov 2016, 9:59 am

Well, of course we don't get to change the rules after the fact. The question is whether if Hillary wins by a couple of million votes it should cause a rethinking of the electoral college for the future.