|
|
The Electoral system
rw wrote in news:418e4dc3$0$31225
: In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? Actually, I'd feel a whole lot better about things if we actually had a polling system that verifiably worked. Let's get that right, and then deal with the Electoral College. Scott |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:x_Bjd.3491$DB.1319@trnddc04... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. Hm..... Well, China is a republic.....as a matter of fact, it's a "Peoples' Republic" and, if I remember my Greek roots, that makes China more democratic than the U.S. I'm not at all sure you're right about that......um......though I will concede that China is inexorably (if rather slowly) inching ever further toward democracy while the U.S. is rushing headlong in the opposite direction. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. Abolishing the Electoral College would be a step in the right direction. If the American electorate can be sold on the patently absurd proposition that Bush is good for them, they'll buy anything. Why not try something that IS good for them? I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Well, there are revolutions and then there are revolutions. What if I were to tell you, for instance, that it might be possible for a significant fraction of the population of a major western industrialized nation, a fraction that seems to genuinely believe that a really big invisible guy with questionable morals wants them to kill everybody who isn't like them, to become a major political force within that nation....AND that the titular leader of that nation actually courted the support of such a group and told them that he agrees with them! Given that rationality has been around for a long time and that it has played a large role in the development of the political and philosophical underpinnings all major western industrialized nations, such a scenario would be sort of revolutionary......wouldn't you say? Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. A lot of people would get hurt. However, it ain't gonna happen......so, I guess it's moot. By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the Electoral College will have any effect on it. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:x_Bjd.3491$DB.1319@trnddc04... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. Hm..... Well, China is a republic.....as a matter of fact, it's a "Peoples' Republic" and, if I remember my Greek roots, that makes China more democratic than the U.S. I'm not at all sure you're right about that......um......though I will concede that China is inexorably (if rather slowly) inching ever further toward democracy while the U.S. is rushing headlong in the opposite direction. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. Abolishing the Electoral College would be a step in the right direction. If the American electorate can be sold on the patently absurd proposition that Bush is good for them, they'll buy anything. Why not try something that IS good for them? I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Well, there are revolutions and then there are revolutions. What if I were to tell you, for instance, that it might be possible for a significant fraction of the population of a major western industrialized nation, a fraction that seems to genuinely believe that a really big invisible guy with questionable morals wants them to kill everybody who isn't like them, to become a major political force within that nation....AND that the titular leader of that nation actually courted the support of such a group and told them that he agrees with them! Given that rationality has been around for a long time and that it has played a large role in the development of the political and philosophical underpinnings all major western industrialized nations, such a scenario would be sort of revolutionary......wouldn't you say? Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. A lot of people would get hurt. However, it ain't gonna happen......so, I guess it's moot. By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the Electoral College will have any effect on it. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Given y'all's opinion of the American voting public, I'd think you'd all LOVE it for this. ;-) I'm an optimist. I believe that the American voting public can be taught to think. I think the first step in the process is to give them occasional opportunities. I realize, of course, that this has (if only accidentally) been tried a few times.......with dismal results......but, as I said, I'm an optimist. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Mike McGuire" wrote in message link.net... Wolfgang wrote: "Mike McGuire" wrote in message Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang It ain't going happen. What I wrote was not a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the electoral college, but rather a discussion of the probabilities of a change. The situation where change might seem most likely is when there is a difference between the electoral vote majority and the popular vote majority. That happened in 2000. Now the usual (but not the only way) a constitutional amendment is proposed is by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress. Given the polarization that existed then, and continues, that would have been highly improbable. Any time that difference situation occurs in the forseeable future, I would expect a similar polarization to stand in the way, never mind the likelihood that there would be at least 13 states in opposition. Note that I left the last line of your previous message unchanged......and without comment. The reason for the electoral college is the fundamental compromise that got the constitution ratified by the original 13 states, which were all but sovereign nations at the time. The less populous of them were not willing to be overwhelmed in a simple plebiscite arangement, so they got the electoral college and they got two senators per state regardless of population while the larger states got house representation based on population. Facinating. This is all pretty basic stuff, Um......so, I guess I should already have known it, huh? and it's the context in which a change would be considered. Well, there's a great deal more to the context. For one thing (and, content to leave the rest as an exercise for the reader, I'll mention only the one), notwithstanding the sentiments of my friends in North Carolina, the individual states in the U.S. do not in the least resemble autonomous sovereign states some two hundreds years later nor, in the opinion of the tyrannical majority, I believe, should they. So I'll stand by my expectation, it ain't going to happen. See above. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Given y'all's opinion of the American voting public, I'd think you'd all LOVE it for this. ;-) I'm an optimist. I believe that the American voting public can be taught to think. I think the first step in the process is to give them occasional opportunities. I realize, of course, that this has (if only accidentally) been tried a few times.......with dismal results......but, as I said, I'm an optimist. Wolfgang Wolfgang, You ARE the optimist aren't you? I think right now, (especially in this State - Idaho), voters look at the party affiliation and vote that way most often. I particularly like the way they stick the judges and magistrates at the end of the ballot and ask if they should be kept (yes or no). A person would have to educate himself by doing a bit of digging just to find out who these people are. Throw in "block voting" as performed by religeous group (ie Mormons, Evangelists, Catholics) and it is going to take alot of optimism IMHO. Philski |
The Electoral system
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Given y'all's opinion of the American voting public, I'd think you'd all LOVE it for this. ;-) I'm an optimist. I believe that the American voting public can be taught to think. I think the first step in the process is to give them occasional opportunities. I realize, of course, that this has (if only accidentally) been tried a few times.......with dismal results......but, as I said, I'm an optimist. Wolfgang Wolfgang, You ARE the optimist aren't you? I think right now, (especially in this State - Idaho), voters look at the party affiliation and vote that way most often. I particularly like the way they stick the judges and magistrates at the end of the ballot and ask if they should be kept (yes or no). A person would have to educate himself by doing a bit of digging just to find out who these people are. Throw in "block voting" as performed by religeous group (ie Mormons, Evangelists, Catholics) and it is going to take alot of optimism IMHO. Philski |
The Electoral system
"philski" wrote in message ... ...it is going to take alot of optimism... I can afford it. I live in a blue state. Um.......hm....... :( Wolfgang and i guess that's why they call it...... |
The Electoral system
"tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Or we could all just re-align ourselves. All the reds move to red states, all the blues to the blue states, and let us unaffiliated types decide the elections for the good of the nation. Mark -- just a thought :~^ ) -- |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... snip By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the Electoral College will have any effect on it. Wolfgang Of course the presence or the abolition of the Electoral College would have no impact on the situation I outlined. I simply brought up that situation to illustrate why , having had some first hand experience with what can happen in the absence of curbs on the will of the "tyrannical majority" (your words), I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that may serve to protect the minority. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
the Reds should move to the Reds, and the Blues should move to the Blues.
Then we should form 3 countries federated only for military, inter-country commerce and a few other things. That's the way it was back in 1776 plus or minus -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://mail.spaminspector.com "Guyz-N-Flyz" wrote in message ... "tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Or we could all just re-align ourselves. All the reds move to red states, all the blues to the blue states, and let us unaffiliated types decide the elections for the good of the nation. Mark -- just a thought :~^ ) -- |
The Electoral system
the Reds should move to the Reds, and the Blues should move to the Blues.
Then we should form 3 countries federated only for military, inter-country commerce and a few other things. That's the way it was back in 1776 plus or minus -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://mail.spaminspector.com "Guyz-N-Flyz" wrote in message ... "tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Or we could all just re-align ourselves. All the reds move to red states, all the blues to the blue states, and let us unaffiliated types decide the elections for the good of the nation. Mark -- just a thought :~^ ) -- |
The Electoral system
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:13:14 -0500, "Guyz-N-Flyz"
wrote: "tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Or we could all just re-align ourselves. All the reds move to red states, all the blues to the blue states, and let us unaffiliated types decide the elections for the good of the nation. Mark -- just a thought :~^ ) -- Didn't that just happen? |
The Electoral system
Sierra fisher wrote:
the Reds should move to the Reds, and the Blues should move to the Blues. Then we should form 3 countries federated only for military, inter-country commerce and a few other things. That's the way it was back in 1776 plus or minus Bring back the Articles of the Confederation! Good plan. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Sierra fisher wrote:
the Reds should move to the Reds, and the Blues should move to the Blues. Then we should form 3 countries federated only for military, inter-country commerce and a few other things. That's the way it was back in 1776 plus or minus Bring back the Articles of the Confederation! Good plan. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
"daytripper" wrote in message ... Didn't that just happen? No! I still got a state full of them red *******s! Mark --presently makin' up trout leaders, just in case some beautiful Canuckian woman makes a move on me-- |
The Electoral system
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Guyz-N-Flyz wrote: "tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in No vote is wasted. It is counted, tallied, published, and used. It doesn't matter which way the state electoral votes go. The vote is published as part of the popular vote count of the candidate, and as such is used to gauge the support of candidates at the national, state, and local level irregardless of who won the district, state, or nation. This idea of "wasted" votes is looney. Heck, I don't even think non-votes are wasted. It's all data, man! Jon. That's great Jon, but what does it have to do with me? Mark |
The Electoral system
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Guyz-N-Flyz wrote: "tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in No vote is wasted. It is counted, tallied, published, and used. It doesn't matter which way the state electoral votes go. The vote is published as part of the popular vote count of the candidate, and as such is used to gauge the support of candidates at the national, state, and local level irregardless of who won the district, state, or nation. This idea of "wasted" votes is looney. Heck, I don't even think non-votes are wasted. It's all data, man! Jon. That's great Jon, but what does it have to do with me? Mark |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:kNQjd.2$b92.0@trnddc09... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... snip By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the Electoral College will have any effect on it. Wolfgang Of course the presence or the abolition of the Electoral College would have no impact on the situation I outlined. I simply brought up that situation to illustrate why , having had some first hand experience with what can happen in the absence of curbs on the will of the "tyrannical majority" (your words), Actually, those are not exactly my words. I borrowed them. As a matter of fact, the only word that I can truly call my own is "fwapuhuhuh", and I haven't been able to find a use for it just ye........um.......you know, it just occurred to me......maybe that's the sound of Janik smacking his forehead to see whether or not a thought might come out. Hm........ But, we digress. :) I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that may serve to protect the minority. There have been, what, maybe as many as half a dozen instances in which the electoral college has decided an election in favor of a candidate who lost the popular vote? I think you'll have a hard time making a substantive case for any downtrodden minority being saved by any such timely intervention. But, just for the sake of argument, let us assume (for the moment) that the electoral college really DOES do what you claim. In that case, and given that we agree it has no effect on the situation you describe above anent the undesired effect of ballot initiatives, doesn't it seem to you that rather than discussing the electoral college (which, I think we can all agree isn't in any danger of being abolished soon regardless of what anyone thinks of it), you should be lobbying for an.....um....."electoral high school" to provide the same sort of protection for voters at a statewide level? I mean......I forget whether you live in Oregon or Washington (and I apologize for that )....but in either case, I'm pretty confident that the population is not evenly distributed across the state, largely as a result of the fact that you said so.....well, I really already knew that.....but, never mind. Anyway, if the will of the majority is, in fact, tyrannical, then an electoral high school might go a long way toward ameliorating the ill effects of that tyranny. For that matter, it now also occurs to me that populations are not generally evenly distributed in most individual counties either. Perhaps an "electoral grade school" would be an appropriate and effective tool in an effort to minimize the deleterious effects of majority rule at that level as well? And, I don't know much about demographics in the pacific northwest, but here the upper Great Lakes region it is not unheard of for even communities (large as well as small) to have uneven population distributions. Why, right here in the city of Milwaukee there are some neighborhoods that have a great many more people living in them than some others. It can hardly be fair that they should hold dominion over the poor benighted souls in the wilderness areas of the city simply because there are more of them, can it? No, I don't think so. I think we should have an "electoral pre-school" to safeguard the inalienable rights of the under-represented and oppressed pockets within the city. Hm.......ya know, an "electoral pre-school" (albeit defined somewhat differently than is suggested above) is probably not all that bad an idea. All that said, I still don't think the electoral college does anything worth the **** it would take to bury it. :) The GOOD news is that anyone who feels sparsely populated rural areas and smaller states are under-represented can actually take pro-active measures to counter the tyranny of the majority. All you have to do is move to New York, Chicago or Los Angeles (it really doesn't matter.....whichever is closest will do) before the next presidential election. Then, on election day, simply vote AGAINST whoever everyone else is voting FOR! Voila, you have single-handedly reduced the lopsided effect of the evil majority in heavily populated areas! Huzzah! Wolfgang who clings fiercely to the notion that "one man, one vote" (while recognizing that historical gender-specific terms are not always to be understood literally and prescriptively today) still means SOMETHING! |
The Electoral system
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( Wolfgang What did ya expect, afterall he lives in "New" Mexico. Mark --freakin' dry-bellies-- |
The Electoral system
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:55 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: "Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( Wolfgang egregious or what, eh? he must be from one of them there red states . . . damn commies Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
The Electoral system
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:55 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( Yup, that's a pretty grim commentary... |
The Electoral system
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:55 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( Yup, that's a pretty grim commentary... |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:kNQjd.2$b92.0@trnddc09... snip I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that *may* serve to protect the minority. (emphasis added in reply only) There have been, what, maybe as many as half a dozen instances in which the electoral college has decided an election in favor of a candidate who lost the popular vote? I think you'll have a hard time making a substantive case for any downtrodden minority being saved by any such timely intervention. But, just for the sake of argument, let us assume (for the moment) that the electoral college really DOES do what you claim. In that case, and given that we agree it has no effect on the situation you describe above anent the undesired effect of ballot initiatives, doesn't it seem to you that rather than discussing the electoral college (which, I think we can all agree isn't in any danger of being abolished soon regardless of what anyone thinks of it), you should be lobbying for an.....um....."electoral high school" to provide the same sort of protection for voters at a statewide level? snippage of reducto ad absurdum scenario I never claimed that the Electoral College protects the minority. Please re-read my statement above (I've emphasized a key word to assist you in understanding what I actually said) in its full context. I don't know that the system really does protect or has protected the minority, however because it has that possibility and was designed to do so(and has funtioned without major harm to the Republic), I am reluctant to abandon it. But as you say the point is moot since it won't happen in our lifetimes. We actually did try to pass a measure to provide some protection, for the minority living in the other 7/8ths of the state, from iniative petitions originating at the whim of the electorate in just Portland, Eugene and Salem.. Not a restriction on how their votes would be weighted, but simply by requiring that the necessary number of signatures of registered voters to get an iniative on the ballot (4%, 6%, & 8% of the voters in the last general election for referendums, statutes, and constitutional amendments respectively) must come from each state congressional district in proportion to the voters in that district. The current constitutional requirement simply specifies the total number of signatures required, with no requirement on where they are collected. The catch 22 is that because the Portland, Eugene, and Salem voters saw that as taking away some of their power over the rest of the state, we were unable to get it passed in a statewide election (required for a state constitutional amendment). Wolfgang who clings fiercely to the notion that "one man, one vote" (while recognizing that historical gender-specific terms are not always to be understood literally and prescriptively today) still means SOMETHING! -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( When people said that word around my FIL, I got to watch his jaw tighten. It was a lot of fun, so I used the word frequently. He also got ****ed when people asked him, "Are you sure?" 'cause he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't. So I used to ask that a WHOLE bunch. But the clincher was "what if". After he'd give directions to some destination, my response was, "What if I turned here instead of there?" I could play "what if" with him for about an hour or so before he'd catch on, then I'd get slugged in the shoulder. Of course, I only played these games with him *after* I married his daughter. :) -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:ugWjd.538$2h7.164@trnddc03... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:kNQjd.2$b92.0@trnddc09... snip I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that *may* serve to protect the minority. (emphasis added in reply only) There have been, what, maybe as many as half a dozen instances in which the electoral college has decided an election in favor of a candidate who lost the popular vote? I think you'll have a hard time making a substantive case for any downtrodden minority being saved by any such timely intervention. But, just for the sake of argument, let us assume (for the moment) that the electoral college really DOES do what you claim. In that case, and given that we agree it has no effect on the situation you describe above anent the undesired effect of ballot initiatives, doesn't it seem to you that rather than discussing the electoral college (which, I think we can all agree isn't in any danger of being abolished soon regardless of what anyone thinks of it), you should be lobbying for an.....um....."electoral high school" to provide the same sort of protection for voters at a statewide level? snippage of reducto ad absurdum scenario I never claimed that the Electoral College protects the minority. Please re-read my statement above (I've emphasized a key word to assist you in understanding what I actually said) in its full context. The claim, in case you hadn't noticed, was implicit in the example you cited of what happens when and where no such protection is in place. I read what you wrote. For the moment, I am still willing to believe that you did too......with or without key words emphasized. Please do not make any more attempts to disabuse me of that notion. I don't know that the system really does protect or has protected the minority, Theoretically, it's feasible. But then, if the theory is framed carefully, what isn't? however because it has that possibility and was designed to do so Well, there's the rub......it wasn't......unless we're talking about a particular minority, a minority that wasn't at all what we think of today when we use the word "minority". In fact, it was (as Peter hinted the other day) designed to protect a VERY particular minority, the same minority whose direct linear descendents are, as we speak, so to speak, cheerfully willing to sacrifice your children and mine (they won't get mine, by the way) to their all-consuming God., and are doing so quite profitably. (and has funtioned without major harm to the Republic), No harm from external forces, as far as I can see......but the plaster has cracked rather badly in recent years due to internal pressures. Granted, it's not the first time.....there was Jackson.....and Lincoln.....and Wilson.....and Eisenhower, to name just a few off the top of my head, and the damage in each case was (mostly) repaired, but regardless of what is used to cover them the cracks remain and, at any rate, the past is no guarantor of the future. I am reluctant to abandon it. So it begins to appear. But as you say the point is moot since it won't happen in our lifetimes. Probably not. But then, in 1961 it was probable that no one would walk on the moon before the end of the decade. I'm going to guess that the effort was, nevertheless, worth making. We actually did try to pass a measure to provide some protection, for the minority living in the other 7/8ths of the state, from iniative petitions originating at the whim of the electorate in just Portland, Eugene and Salem.. Not a restriction on how their votes would be weighted, but simply by requiring that the necessary number of signatures of registered voters to get an iniative on the ballot (4%, 6%, & 8% of the voters in the last general election for referendums, statutes, and constitutional amendments respectively) must come from each state congressional district in proportion to the voters in that district. The current constitutional requirement simply specifies the total number of signatures required, with no requirement on where they are collected. The catch 22 is that because the Portland, Eugene, and Salem voters saw that as taking away some of their power over the rest of the state, we were unable to get it passed in a statewide election (required for a state constitutional amendment). See now, that looks suspiciously like a claim of some sort. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Tim J" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: "Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( When people said that word around my FIL, I got to watch his jaw tighten. It was a lot of fun, so I used the word frequently. He also got ****ed when people asked him, "Are you sure?" 'cause he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't. So I used to ask that a WHOLE bunch. But the clincher was "what if". After he'd give directions to some destination, my response was, "What if I turned here instead of there?" I could play "what if" with him for about an hour or so before he'd catch on, then I'd get slugged in the shoulder. Of course, I only played these games with him *after* I married his daughter. So......um......are you saying that Jon and I are engaged? Wolfgang not happy......uh uh, not at all. :( |
The Electoral system
Wolfgang wrote:
"Tim J" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: "Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... ...irregardless... Oh, good Lord. :( When people said that word around my FIL, I got to watch his jaw tighten. It was a lot of fun, so I used the word frequently. He also got ****ed when people asked him, "Are you sure?" 'cause he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't. So I used to ask that a WHOLE bunch. But the clincher was "what if". After he'd give directions to some destination, my response was, "What if I turned here instead of there?" I could play "what if" with him for about an hour or so before he'd catch on, then I'd get slugged in the shoulder. Of course, I only played these games with him *after* I married his daughter. So......um......are you saying that Jon and I are engaged? I *think* I said he should marry your daughter. Wolfgang not happy......uh uh, not at all. :( I can now die a happy man. ;-) -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
The Electoral system
"tim_s" wrote in message m... ...i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Well, that sounds like a very equitable arrangement. However, it sort of invites the question of what purpose......other than a junket at the taxpayers expense......the electoral college would then serve. It seems to me that if whoever is responsible for tallying the election results can count to 52 and can be trusted to do so with a reasonable degree of accuracy and honesty, then he or she could also likely handle picking up the phone and calling that number in to whoever needs to be called. The bottom line is that if the electoral college is remade so that it accurately and fairly represents the will of the people as expressed in the ballots they cast for elective officials, then it is useless. It's ONLY justification rests on the fact that it does, however infrequently, exactly the opposite. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"tim_s" wrote in message m... ...i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Well, that sounds like a very equitable arrangement. However, it sort of invites the question of what purpose......other than a junket at the taxpayers expense......the electoral college would then serve. It seems to me that if whoever is responsible for tallying the election results can count to 52 and can be trusted to do so with a reasonable degree of accuracy and honesty, then he or she could also likely handle picking up the phone and calling that number in to whoever needs to be called. The bottom line is that if the electoral college is remade so that it accurately and fairly represents the will of the people as expressed in the ballots they cast for elective officials, then it is useless. It's ONLY justification rests on the fact that it does, however infrequently, exactly the opposite. Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:10:40 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"tim_s" wrote in message om... ...i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Well, that sounds like a very equitable arrangement. However, it sort of invites the question of what purpose......other than a junket at the taxpayers expense......the electoral college would then serve. As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people, NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. FWIW -- Charlie... http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/ |
The Electoral system
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:10:40 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"tim_s" wrote in message om... ...i think tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining # of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral votes.... Well, that sounds like a very equitable arrangement. However, it sort of invites the question of what purpose......other than a junket at the taxpayers expense......the electoral college would then serve. As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people, NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. FWIW -- Charlie... http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/ |
The Electoral system
From: Charlie Choc
As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people, NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. FWIW Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution. HTH Yer Pal, Rube George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
The Electoral system
From: Charlie Choc
As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people, NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. FWIW Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution. HTH Yer Pal, Rube George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
The Electoral system
From: Charlie Choc
As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people, NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. FWIW Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution. HTH Yer Pal, Rube George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
The Electoral system
George Adams writes:
Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution. HTH Yer Pal, Rube Perfect! *And* hilarious. |
The Electoral system
George Adams writes:
Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution. HTH Yer Pal, Rube Perfect! *And* hilarious. |
The Electoral system
George Adams wrote:
From: Charlie Choc As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people, NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. FWIW Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution. George, George, George. That would involve some internal reflection and possibly the conclusion that some of the more "progressive" ideas are not mainstream enough to sway voters and even might drive voters away. Since that can't possibly be the case, it *must* be you are, indeed, a rube. ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------ http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter