Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#152 Nov 13 2016 at 5:45 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,912 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Maybe if there were 54 times as many men in the US as there were women, women would feel a bit let down by a purely popular vote? Wouldn't they want to attempt to equalize the interests of both men and women? While the men would want their majority to still hold some power.

But we as a nation have agreed this is ok. Within an individual state, men's and women's votes do count the same, even if one group is in the majority.


http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Would appear that for the most part, populations of man vs woman are near equal.

But, stepping aside for a second. The system is a compromise of "majority rule" vs "majority of groups (like States, or in this case, Men or Women) rule". So it's never going to be exactly one way or exactly the other.

Allegory wrote:
States to me are largely artificial governing constructs. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. Montana has 3 electoral. If the two states decided to merge into a single state, then they would not have 6 electoral votes, they would still have 3. They would still have the same constituents with the same interests, but now their amount of representation has changed based on where the boundaries have been drawn.


Yes, because they'd now be one State. They'd also now get fewer members in Congress. All your criticisms seem to fall on "This apple doesn't look like this orange." Individually, their values as a State in the Union raise up their relatively low populations worth when it comes to electing the President and to getting representation in the Senate and House.

Allegory wrote:
I see the ultimate goal of voting systems as to achieve as accurate a translation of people's interest to government as possible. Simplistically, the amount of people who want something multiplied by the degree to which they want it should be reflected in the government to exactly that degree. Any more or less is a failure in the translation process.


But ultimately, our country is a Union of individual States. And Wyoming's value as a State raises it up a bit (but not 100% equal, since there has been a compromise with the value of larger Populations).

Allegory wrote:
It has happened 157 times. It has yet to effect a presidential election, but were it to do so it would be a legitimate result. Even if you like everything else the EC does, do you also agree that they can Constitutionally ignore any input from the entirety of U.S. voters? What purpose does this serve or benefit does it achieve?

What if it was built into the rules of baseball that the umpire could change the score at any point in the game on a whim? Even if in the history of MLB no umpire has used it to effect the outcome of the game (although they have messed with scores before), why have this rule?


157 times which appears to be an extremely small amount relatively speaking. Also appears that something like half the States plus DC have rules regarding the way an elector can vote, and penalties for not voting the way they pledged. So time to get on your State level governments to fix anything you may see as wrong with the way they choose electors and enforce pledges. Maybe pressure them to look at those gerrymandered district lines a bit too.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#153 Nov 13 2016 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
Even if you like everything else the EC does, do you also agree that they can Constitutionally ignore any input from the entirety of U.S. voters? What purpose does this serve or benefit does it achieve?

The Founding Fathers assumed that the average person was a moron who can't actually be trusted with democracy. Same reason why senators used to be selected by the state legislatures rather than popular vote.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Nov 13 2016 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
TirithRR wrote:
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Would appear that for the most part, populations of man vs woman are near equal.

But, stepping aside for a second. The system is a compromise of "majority rule" vs "majority of groups (like States, or in this case, Men or Women) rule". So it's never going to be exactly one way or exactly the other.

We could substitute race for gender if you prefer. The system isn't a compromise between majority rule for any demographic except geographic. A difference isn't being drawn for men versus women or white versus blacks, but it is being drawn for Texans versus Wyomingites. And the compromise that it does take there is arbitrary.
TirithRR wrote:
Yes, because they'd now be one State. They'd also now get fewer members in Congress. All your criticisms seem to fall on "This apple doesn't look like this orange." Individually, their values as a State in the Union raise up their relatively low populations worth when it comes to electing the President and to getting representation in the Senate and House.

But ultimately, our country is a Union of individual States. And Wyoming's value as a State raises it up a bit (but not 100% equal, since there has been a compromise with the value of larger Populations).

I guess my criticism is that an apple should be an apple any way you slice it, and not suddenly be called an orange.

Let me ask you then, do you find no problem with gerrymandering? If you don't see any issue with the same group of people with the same values producing a different result based on how the state boundaries are drawn, then you shouldn't see any issue with the same group of people with the same values producing a different result based on how district lines are drawn. It is fundamentally the same concept.
TirithRR wrote:
157 times which appears to be an extremely small amount relatively speaking. Also appears that something like half the States plus DC have rules regarding the way an elector can vote, and penalties for not voting the way they pledged. So time to get on your State level governments to fix anything you may see as wrong with the way they choose electors and enforce pledges.

Those punishments may not be Constitutional, and even if they were I'm not sure they would override the vote.

I don't understand your perspective, and you'll have to give me a more generalized view. It seems that by saying 157 is a small number that you agree this is a problem, but you don't want it to be fixed. Do you like every aspect of the way the EC works. Do you see no change that should be made and believe the system is perfect as is, and that no voting system in all of human past or all of humanity's future will ever surpass it?

Edited, Nov 13th 2016 1:34pm by Allegory
#155 Nov 13 2016 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The Founding Fathers assumed that the average person was a moron who can't actually be trusted with democracy. Same reason why senators used to be selected by the state legislatures rather than popular vote.

What dead men think isn't of much concern to me. Do you think electors can consistently do a better job of selecting the president than a popular vote (or another any other preferred methodology)?

Edited, Nov 13th 2016 1:34pm by Allegory
#156 Nov 13 2016 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wasn't giving my opinion of it. You asked what purpose it served. It was designed around the purpose that the FF thought we're idiots. The benefit is that the common voter doesn't have the final word in deciding the presidency. That's the answer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Nov 13 2016 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,912 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Would appear that for the most part, populations of man vs woman are near equal.

But, stepping aside for a second. The system is a compromise of "majority rule" vs "majority of groups (like States, or in this case, Men or Women) rule". So it's never going to be exactly one way or exactly the other.

We could substitute race for gender if you prefer. The system isn't a compromise between majority rule for any demographic except geographic. A difference isn't being drawn for men versus women or white versus blacks, but it is being drawn for Texans versus Wyomingites. And the compromise that it does take there is arbitrary.


Let's be clear here. I don't believe in giving any particular individual more or less based on ***/religion/race, etc. I merely used your Man/Woman example. But this is not just a "geographic demographic". This is a State. The States are governing bodies that agreed to enter a Union. So that is why the compromise exists based on that. It's not arbitrary.

Now, if Men really were from Mars, and Women really from Venus, and Mars and Venus came together and decided to form a United Federation of Planets, I would agree that something like the EC would need to be implemented so that the (fictional) massive population of Mars did not constantly outweigh Venus because of a 1 person 1 vote rule. (Wasn't there some Mecha-Fanservice-Anime that did something like that?)


Allegory wrote:
I guess my criticism is that an apple should be an apple any way you slice it, and not suddenly be called an orange.

Let me ask you then, do you find no problem with gerrymandering? If you don't see any issue with the same group of people with the same values producing a different result based on how the state boundaries are drawn, then you shouldn't see any issue with the same group of people with the same values producing a different result based on how district lines are drawn. It is fundamentally the same concept.

[...]

Do you like every aspect of the way the EC works. Do you see no change that should be made and believe the system is perfect as is, and that no voting system in all of human past or all of humanity's future will ever surpass it?


I think you are connecting a couple (or even a few) issues here that don't have to be connected. I can be against gerrymandering, and against Electors being able to switch their vote, while still being for the idea that lower population States get a heavier weighted vote per person at the Federal level than a straight 1 person 1 vote would be.

I merely point out that the times electors have switched there votes are so small, and so insignificant, that bringing it up and tying it to the concept of the EC as a whole, irremovable from it, just seems like a fear mongering attempt when large, consolidated populations don't get their way.

And I don't think punishments (like elector votes being thrown out, fines, criminal prosecution) are a violation of the constitution. But I guess that'd be up for the courts to decide, if someone decided to challenge half the States.

Edit:
According to this site (Government Source) a few States do have restrictions that would cancel the vote if the Elector went against the pledged choice. So it seems that they can restrict it and nullify the vote.

Edited, Nov 14th 2016 7:36pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#158 Nov 13 2016 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Well, I wanted a present tense answer to a present tense question. I was also wanting an answer specifically from TirithRR as I'm trying to better grasp what his perspective is.

I'm looking for a justification for the EC that exists now as it exists now for reasons other than practicality, because the sense that I've gained form TirithRR and Gbaji is that they both believe the current system is the best for representing the people.
#159 Nov 14 2016 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
gbaji wrote:
In the end, how I voted didn't really matter
That answers that question.
Jophiel wrote:
It was designed around the purpose that the FF thought we're idiots.
Certainly no denying it now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#160 Nov 14 2016 at 8:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,414 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It was designed around the purpose that the FF thought we're idiots.

Well, compared to Reed Richards, yes, we are all idiots, but I'm pretty sure I could beat Ben in a math off!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#161 Nov 14 2016 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
Don't know, might be close. Ben was a NASA pilot and had a bunch of engineering degrees even before being turned into a statue.

Also insert obvious Jewish joke here.

Edited, Nov 14th 2016 11:07am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#162 Nov 14 2016 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Speaking of the Electoral College, Slate gonna Slate.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#163 Nov 14 2016 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Eh? My local paper runs opposing editorials the majority of days.
#164 Nov 14 2016 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,912 posts
Demea wrote:
Speaking of the Electoral College, Slate gonna Slate.


Seems like that right article is missing a few adjectives. Aren't they supposed to try to fit "male", "cisgender", "heterosexual", umm... damn, I forgot the rest.

Edited, Nov 14th 2016 8:34pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#165 Nov 14 2016 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Privileged Shitlord. Smiley: nod

Edited, Nov 14th 2016 7:58pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#166 Nov 14 2016 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
not by total popular vote of the country as a whole.

That is exactly what the most populous states wanted.


No, it's not. For two reasons:

1. You're confusing a raw popular vote, which means every single person votes independent of where they live, and the totals are just added up, versus "each state gets a delegation based on that state's total population, and each states delegation is in turn determined via a vote of the people in that state". Those are *not* the same thing, and will not always cause the same outcome. And again, that assumes that each state determines the makeup of their delegations via the same methods (ie: popular vote), which is *also* not a requirement. Remember, we live in the "United States of America", not "Americaland".

2. While it's what would have benefited their states the most, that does not mean that's what the folks coming up with the system fought for tooth and nail. You're assuming a straight up adversarial process here, with the small states each wanting every state to have the same number, and the big states wanting each state to have a number of representatives based on population, and then they compromised in the middle. The reality is much more like how we actually do things in the real world. Both sides realize that either one of those extremes would be unfair for various reasons and collectively seek out a solution that provides the best mix of the two.

Your argument is like saying that combining a sweet flavor (like say grated carrot) into your high acid tomato sauce, was a compromise between those who wanted "sweet" marinara and those who wanted "acid" marinara with both being steadfastly committed to their "side" of the flavor issue, when the reality is that most sane people realize that by putting both in there, it simply makes for a better tasting sauce. Most people recognize immediately that delegations based on pure population is unfair, and that those awarded to states regardless of size is *also* unfair. Most people then seek out a solution that works better. Um... Which is what happened in this case.

Quote:
It's the only relevant point besides the faithless electors debacle. If the exact number of delegates from each state was exactly equal to their proportion of the population then there would be no discussion to be had.


Incorrect. It's not even a very complicated math problem and easily demonstrated. Let's say there are 5 states in our hypothetical country. Let's also say that there are exactly 5 million voters in the total national election. Let's also assume there is one big state with 3 million voters (state A), and 4 smaller states, with .5 million voters each (states B through E). Let's also assume that each state gets a representative in the EC for every 100k voters. So the first state has 30 EC votes, and each of the remaining 4 states have 5.

First obvious outcome is that it doesn't matter how anyone votes in the other four smaller states, right? You win a simple majority of the voters in the one big state and you automatically win 3/5ths of the electoral college and win. So... um... Way to totally disenfranchise 40% of your population, right? So if 51% of the voters in state A vote for candidate A, and 100% of the voters in states B, C, D, and E vote for candidate B,, then candidate A wins, despite the popular vote going to candidate A (just under 3.5 million votes to just over 1.5 million).

That's an extreme example to illustrate the point, but you don't really need that much extreme for this to happen. The point I'm making here is the fact that we weight the EC in favor of small states a bit by granting each delegation 2 extra votes regardless of size, the same issue of the EC providing a different outcome than the majority opinion by raw popular vote still occurs.

We could change the numbers just a bit and say that state A contains 2 million voters, states B and C each have 1 million voters, and D and E each have half a million voters, and come up with a scenario where say 51% of the voters in states A and B vote for candidate A, while 100% of voters in C, D, and E vote for candidate B. This would result in 30 EC votes for candidate A, but only just over 1.5 million votes. And just in case you think this means that the EC always favors big states, we could also have a scenario where 100% of voters in state A vote candidate A, and 49% of voters in states B, C, D, and E for for candidate A. That would result in candidate A winning only 20 EC votes out of 50, but having won just under 4 million popular votes out of the total 5 million.

Point being that in a diverse enough set of states and populations, there are a nearly infinite number of possible scenarios where the EC results will differ from the popular vote, even without the extra weight our system puts in to help out small states. So arguing that the scenario where that happens is somehow the "fault" of a disagreement over that weighting factor is just plain flawed. It does not matter (well, not much). What really matters is that we determine the election by delegations and not by popular vote. Now, if you disagree with that methodology, then you're free to do so. But the issue of delegation size by pure population versus weighted value isn't relevant to that. You either think that each state sending its own delegation to vote is wrong, or you think it's right. Pick one, and then defend it.

There's no "compromise" here that resulted in this possibility. The folks who came up with the method we use for electing presidents were pretty much all on board with the idea of using state delegations from day one, and I'm not aware that anyone seriously considered trying to use a straight popular vote for this. So your talk about it not being an intent, but a compromise is meaningless. You're free to argue that the EC delegation process should change, but that does not address the issue of whether we should use the EC or populate vote in the first place.

You're mixing up two completely different issues IMO.


Quote:
Yes, and that's a flaw.


No. It's not. It's how representation works. The same exact "flaw" exists when you elect a member of your political party to congress. He could choose to vote in a way you don't like on a given issue, right? It's possible. Heck. It even happens from time to time. Um... But it's less likely to happen here because this would be like if the people voted in members of congress, not to vote on a wide variety of different bills that may come up over the course of their term, but to literally make one and only one vote on one and only one thing. Each person is being selected specifically because he has promised to vote for A, or for B. You elect that person to that position based on his promise to vote A or B. Period.

That's not a flaw. That's how representative government works. I'm not sure how you can't grasp this. How else would you do it?

Quote:
Ultimately the popular vote is irrelevant, and the presumed electoral vote is irrelevant. The electors can and have voted against their assigned vote. I guarantee you most people would be upset if multiple electors were to break from their assign votes and elect someone other than the president elect, and yet this is a legitimate, Constitutional result. Why continue to support a system that is designed to fail?


Because it's better than every other system we've tried?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Nov 14 2016 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Would appear that for the most part, populations of man vs woman are near equal.

But, stepping aside for a second. The system is a compromise of "majority rule" vs "majority of groups (like States, or in this case, Men or Women) rule". So it's never going to be exactly one way or exactly the other.

We could substitute race for gender if you prefer. The system isn't a compromise between majority rule for any demographic except geographic. A difference isn't being drawn for men versus women or white versus blacks, but it is being drawn for Texans versus Wyomingites. And the compromise that it does take there is arbitrary.


It's not. Each state is its own sovereign territory, with its own economy, its own legislative body, its own executive body, its judicial body, its own police forces, education departments, etc, etc, etc. There are a ton of reasons why we might treat the state of Texas differently than the state of Wyoming from a legal and representation perspective, but not "white people", "black people", "men", and "women". The former represents divisions along actual legal and geographic boundaries, while the other only exists as divisions to the degree to which we decide to treat or act differently based on those things. There's no innate reason why a black person would want a different set of rules than a white person. There are a number of reasons why someone living in one state might want different federal rules and whatnot than someone living in another.

Those are just not remotely the same thing.

Quote:
I guess my criticism is that an apple should be an apple any way you slice it, and not suddenly be called an orange.


Except in this case, one thing is very very different than the other. I would hope you're not advocating that we segregate people by race or *** or whatever, and apply different rules to them based on those categories. Right? Cause that would be a really bad idea. While having different rules in one state versus another is absolutely not a problem. Surely you can see this. I hope?

Quote:
Let me ask you then, do you find no problem with gerrymandering? If you don't see any issue with the same group of people with the same values producing a different result based on how the state boundaries are drawn, then you shouldn't see any issue with the same group of people with the same values producing a different result based on how district lines are drawn. It is fundamentally the same concept.


That's a whole different topic really. Again though, the primary difference her is that when the divisions are geographical (or legal), people can affect change by moving their location. You can't change the color of your skin. So totally not the same thing.

I do happen to agree with you that gerrymandering is a problem. But it's a problem that can and does got both ways, and frankly, there's no much we can do to prevent it.

Quote:
I don't understand your perspective, and you'll have to give me a more generalized view. It seems that by saying 157 is a small number that you agree this is a problem, but you don't want it to be fixed.


157 times is counting the total number of EC delegates who voted against how they were supposed to. Not 157 times that decision actually had any effect on the outcome of the election. That number is zero.

Quote:
Do you like every aspect of the way the EC works. Do you see no change that should be made and believe the system is perfect as is, and that no voting system in all of human past or all of humanity's future will ever surpass it?


I think the bigger problem is when people only bring this issue up when the results aren't in their favor. If you only care about fixing the EC when the popular vote was for your candidate, but the EC vote gave the win to the opposing candidate, then this isn't really about you caring about the flaws of the system, but you not liking that your candidate didn't win. It's like complaining about the push out rule for receptions in football right after your team's receiver got pushed out of bounds while making what would otherwise have been a game winning catch. If you don't complain about it every single time it's used, regardless of who benefits, then your complaint can rightly be ignored as whining about your own team losing.

Which is basically what this EC thing is as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Nov 14 2016 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,912 posts
I am curious if Allegory is against the idea of the Senate? Same voting power regardless of population. Even the House would be weighted to the bottom because of the guaranteed one representative. (The combination of which would be why the EC is weighted such). The whole system gives more weight (but not equal weight) to States with smaller populations. As if by design.

One would assume that as the country becomes less rural, more evenly polarized (with the right-vote being spread out in the more sparsely populated rural areas), and more liberal (in bigger urban cities) that you will probably see these EC / Popular mismatches happen more often.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#169 Nov 14 2016 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Speaking of the Electoral College, Slate gonna Slate.

I'll be the first to agree that Slate is usually nonsense but they have different writers and contributors. That Richard Posner (judge for the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) in 2012 said one thing and Mark Joseph Stern (writer for law and LGBTQ issues) in 2016 said something else isn't exactly earth-shattering.

Edited, Nov 14th 2016 9:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#170 Nov 14 2016 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,388 posts
#171 Nov 14 2016 at 11:39 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,345 posts
If I'm reading gbaji right he is advocating for proportional EC?


ALSO: Wyoming is just Texas writ small. Maybe make a different comparison? Like Texas vs, oh I dunno, South Dakota? (since we are not an "energy" state?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#172 Nov 15 2016 at 12:16 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Doing the quick and easy responses first before responding to Gbaji.
Friar Bijou wrote:
If I'm reading gbaji right he is advocating for proportional EC?

I'm opining that the EC is a fundamentally flawed system for translating political desires into results, though it may have practical benefits such as being cheaper and faster than more accurate elections. I'm not partial to any specific alternative, but I assert a purely popular vote would more accurately translate political desires into results.
TirithRR wrote:
I am curious if Allegory is against the idea of the Senate?

One would assume that as the country becomes less rural, more evenly polarized (with the right-vote being spread out in the more sparsely populated rural areas), and more liberal (in bigger urban cities) that you will probably see these EC / Popular mismatches happen more often.

I am against the Senate, and have fairly radical ideas on how representatives should be elected, but realize there is absolutely no political interest in seeking any change in that area.

Your point about stratification may be correct, but--and not wanting to branch the conversation off in another direction again-- I believe tying people to geographical location will become less and less relevant as time goes on, which will further distort any system based on geographical governance.

I don't work in the same district I live in, like many citizens I commute. I spend half of my waking hours in a location I do not have representation in. The business I work for has a national client base and must satisfy the various requirements of other states in which it and most of its employees do not have representation. More so in the past, you would be born, live, and die in the same town, and it you pulled up states it was a fairly permanent transition. As time goes on, geographic location is going to become less and less relevant. systems built around the convenience of grouping people geographically are going to continually lose their ability to accurately represent that group.

I believe there are present problems with the EC, but over time those problems will grow worse due to decreased importance on geographic location.
#173 Nov 15 2016 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
The reality is much more like how we actually do things in the real world. Both sides realize that either one of those extremes would be unfair for various reasons and collectively seek out a solution that provides the best mix of the two.

Well, you're right in that they were being realists, but their solution was a diplomatic one, not a scientific, mathematical, or philosophical one. They said "Fudge it, we'll go halfsies." A voting system shouldn't be designed based on negotiations anymore than you can negotiate the equations of gravity.
gbaji wrote:
The same exact "flaw" exists when you elect a member of your political party to congress. He could choose to vote in a way you don't like on a given issue, right?

Yes, but at least I elected him. I don't have the same control over an elector.

Moreover, when I'm electing a representative I'm electing not to simply be my helper monkey and push the voting button in Congress because I'm too lazy to do so. I'm electing a representative to make decisions on my behalf. Their votes are not my votes, they themselves are my vote.

With a faithless elector, and this may merely be opinion but I think it's a rather valid one most people would agree with, I'm not selecting them to make decisions on my behalf. If I vote Joe Plumber for president, then I want my elector to vote Joe Plumber for president. I don't want my elector to take that as a suggestion and ultimately do what they feels best.
gbaji wrote:
Because it's better than every other system we've tried?

How trite. We haven't tried much at all. We're beginning to though. Maine just recently passed a measure to allow ranked voting, which I believe is an improvement.

Life is a race. You start to lose not because you began to head backwards, but also because you stand still. If the U.S. never tries to improve then we will fall behind other nations that do.
#174 Nov 15 2016 at 6:11 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,912 posts
The issue is you appear to hold no value (or almost no value at all) to the State. So you see no value in the States having an sort of equalized power.

I'm honestly curious if you'd be on that side if the current Rural vs Urban voting styles of the American populace were switched. If these big, growing, cities were bastions of Conservative voting. I haven't paid attention to enough of your posts to remember if you lean left or right (assuming left, since the number of right leaners on this forum are minimal). And not an "of course I would be" easy answer which everyone gives when approached by such a question. The whole "it's only broken if it doesn't work for the people I agree with".

I see an issue with a purely popular vote when some ~40% of the US population lives in 20 huge cities across the US (And I think those numbers are growing, but haven't looked up exact numbers or trends). I have no idea where you live, and don't really care to pry, but I would think there are realistic differences in important issues across a country as big and populous as the US. Beyond the "who gets to use what bathroom" things.

Allegory wrote:
Well, [toward gbaji] you're right in that they were being realists, but their solution was a diplomatic one, not a scientific, mathematical, or philosophical one. They said "Fudge it, we'll go halfsies." A voting system shouldn't be designed based on negotiations anymore than you can negotiate the equations of gravity.


And I disagree. A voting system should be designed based on diplomacy and negotiation. Not just mathematics. In this case multiple groups came together and formed a Union, and those smaller parts of the Union were worried their voices would be lost to the larger parts. Interactions between wide varieties of people shouldn't be treated like the laws of gravity... that's just silly.

Edited, Nov 15th 2016 6:45pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#175 Nov 15 2016 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Quote:
I do happen to agree with you that gerrymandering is a problem. But it's a problem that can and does got both ways, and frankly, there's no much we can do to prevent it.


Yes. There is no way we can design a system without gerrymandering. It's just a natural law.

Having arbitrary regional boundaries matter in a national election is fairly asinine. It's one of many structural hedges to disenfranchise the public.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#176 Nov 15 2016 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'll be the first to agree that Slate is usually nonsense but they have different writers and contributors.
Sure, but it's more about Slate having a general tone. It'd be like Fox News suddenly doing nothing but praising Obama.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)