RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules

RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 10:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I voted against Obama but I think tampering with the elctorial college is a bad idea, we would still be recounting the 2000 election if it were done on the popular vote. How do you figure that? Wasn't Gore ahead by half a million votes? Hence why your vote means nothing.

DomKen -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 10:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: An entire political manipulation. Why do we vote if the Electoral College is in fact, regardless of the vote count, how our Prez gets elected? Eliminate one or the other and tell the truth as to how our system works. I think it continues as a compromise to the smaller states who get the same two elector votes for senator as the larger states. So, Wyoming has three electors but only one represents the voters. I think I have that right. The EC as you know is born of an era when transportation to the Capitol was horseback or horse drawn on rutty, muddy roads. Obviously, that is no longer a need. What I was trying to address in the OP is the motives and consequences of manipulation of the system by the losing Party. The only way it will be twarted I think is by the ethics of the Governors of those six states. Not sure we can depend on that.[8\|] The other option is to unseat those Govs in the 2014 election. In which case the people of the states will have a voice in the matter beforehand. Actually, the first election that a new Governor will be able to effect through re-districting would be 2024, since Districts are mapped only after each census. However, making changes to the way electors are selected could be done before the election. Actually redistricting can be done at any time. Virginia actually passed a new districting plan last Monday.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 12:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: An entire political manipulation. Why do we vote if the Electoral College is in fact, regardless of the vote count, how our Prez gets elected? Eliminate one or the other and tell the truth as to how our system works. I think it continues as a compromise to the smaller states who get the same two elector votes for senator as the larger states. So, Wyoming has three electors but only one represents the voters. I think I have that right. The EC as you know is born of an era when transportation to the Capitol was horseback or horse drawn on rutty, muddy roads. Obviously, that is no longer a need. What I was trying to address in the OP is the motives and consequences of manipulation of the system by the losing Party. The only way it will be twarted I think is by the ethics of the Governors of those six states. Not sure we can depend on that.[8\|] The other option is to unseat those Govs in the 2014 election. In which case the people of the states will have a voice in the matter beforehand. Actually, the first election that a new Governor will be able to effect through re-districting would be 2024, since Districts are mapped only after each census. However, making changes to the way electors are selected could be done before the election. Actually redistricting can be done at any time. Virginia actually passed a new districting plan last Monday. A quick scan did turn up evidence that State legislatures can re-District when they want, but, it most sites stated that it generally happens after the Census, to adjust for population shifts.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 2:24:27 PM)
quote: A quick scan did turn up evidence that State legislatures can re-District when they want, but, it most sites stated that it generally happens after the Census, to adjust for population shifts. You make it sound so innocent and routine, DS. But hardly that, is it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 2:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: A quick scan did turn up evidence that State legislatures can re-District when they want, but, it most sites stated that it generally happens after the Census, to adjust for population shifts. You make it sound so innocent and routine, DS. But hardly that, is it? Not sure what you're saying there, Vincent.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 2:33:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: A quick scan did turn up evidence that State legislatures can re-District when they want, but, it most sites stated that it generally happens after the Census, to adjust for population shifts. You make it sound so innocent and routine, DS. But hardly that, is it? Not sure what you're saying there, Vincent. Saying gerrymandering is often political and benefits the party in power. Ya think?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 2:48:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: A quick scan did turn up evidence that State legislatures can re-District when they want, but, it most sites stated that it generally happens after the Census, to adjust for population shifts. You make it sound so innocent and routine, DS. But hardly that, is it? Not sure what you're saying there, Vincent. Saying gerrymandering is often political and benefits the party in power. Ya think? Certainly does, and I think that should not be acceptable. Period. No party affiliation need be given because it is wrong for both parties to do so.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 2:55:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: A quick scan did turn up evidence that State legislatures can re-District when they want, but, it most sites stated that it generally happens after the Census, to adjust for population shifts. You make it sound so innocent and routine, DS. But hardly that, is it? Not sure what you're saying there, Vincent. Saying gerrymandering is often political and benefits the party in power. Ya think? Certainly does, and I think that should not be acceptable. Period. No party affiliation need be given because it is wrong for both parties to do so. Agreed. But politics is rough and tough and mostly a grab for power. Nothing fair about it.

dcnovice -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 6:50:12 PM)
quote: Hence why your vote means nothing. If you don't want to vote, that's fine by me.

Real0ne -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 7:04:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I voted against Obama but I think tampering with the elctorial college is a bad idea, we would still be recounting the 2000 election if it were done on the popular vote. yeh we can go to the moon and cannot come up with a tamperproof way to secure our elections. until elections can be known without doubt to be secure all this is simply pissing up a rope.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 5:52:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Agreed. But politics is rough and tough and mostly a grab for power. Nothing fair about it. Set the rules, and play by the rules. Change the rules when deemed necessary. As long as the rules are set relatively fairly and then followed, politics can be fair. People will disagree. But, the Federal Government should be all about what is best for the Country as a whole, not for the individuals, or for the three-toed double spotted mid-Western barn mouse (or any other location-specific "thing"). Is it the Federal Government's role to maintain State roads? County Roads? City roads? Would the Nation, from one end to the other, have been benefited had Solyndra been a success? No? Then they get no money. Would the Nation, from one end to the other, see a benefit with BP getting tax breaks for drilling equipment? No? Then they get no tax break. Does the Nation, from one end to the other get a benefit out of offering a tax break to businesses? Yes? Then each business gets that tax break, not just this one, or that one.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 1:33:20 PM)
quote: People will disagree. But, the Federal Government should be all about what is best for the Country as a whole, But, as Speaker Tip O'Neal famously said: "All politics is local." What's good for the country as a whole depends on whose hole you're standing in.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 1:46:03 PM)
The electoral college is a racist institution, and needs to be thrown out. It was designed to give the southern states representation without taxation, and to partially vote instead of their slaves. Popular vote, lets do an amendment.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 2:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The electoral college is a racist institution, and needs to be thrown out. It was designed to give the southern states representation without taxation, and to partially vote instead of their slaves. Popular vote, lets do an amendment. Simple majority, then. No plurality. You need 50%+1 of all voting age Citizens. Deal?

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 2:03:23 PM)
Nope, popular vote, same way any other federal, state or local political office is voted. A majority of the vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 2:05:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nope, popular vote, same way any other federal, state or local political office is voted. A majority of the vote. That's not a true majority, then, is it?

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 2:12:03 PM)
You fuckin Sie A it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/true?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/28/2013 7:20:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You fuckin Sie A it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/true?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority If only 50% of all voting age Citizens vote, then the most anyone can get is actually 50% of the voting age citizens. 50% is not a majority. 50%+1 of those that cast a ballot may not actually result in a total that eclipses 50% of all those of voting age. And, since that mark wasn't passed, there is no way that the majority of the people elected that person.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 4:32:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You fuckin Sie A it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/true?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority If only 50% of all voting age Citizens vote, then the most anyone can get is actually 50% of the voting age citizens. 50% is not a majority. 50%+1 of those that cast a ballot may not actually result in a total that eclipses 50% of all those of voting age. And, since that mark wasn't passed, there is no way that the majority of the people elected that person. Except for maybe a town of 5 or 6 people there has never been a vote of 100% of the electorate that I know of. Seems your definition of majority is dicking around with a utopian pov. Would you prefer a law that mandates voting as they do in Oz? Somewhere I got the impression that you preferred a republic to a democracy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 5:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You fuckin Sie A it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/true?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority If only 50% of all voting age Citizens vote, then the most anyone can get is actually 50% of the voting age citizens. 50% is not a majority. 50%+1 of those that cast a ballot may not actually result in a total that eclipses 50% of all those of voting age. And, since that mark wasn't passed, there is no way that the majority of the people elected that person. Except for maybe a town of 5 or 6 people there has never been a vote of 100% of the electorate that I know of. Seems your definition of majority is dicking around with a utopian pov. Would you prefer a law that mandates voting as they do in Oz? Somewhere I got the impression that you preferred a republic to a democracy. I most certain do prefer a republic to a democracy. Thus, my requirement of a simple majority of voting age Citizens being required for MN's desired shift to a democracy.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375