Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 1639 (754505)
03-27-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
03-27-2015 12:50 PM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
a fair counting of the popular vote and the inclusion of all voters in the process and reduction of voting machine fraud.
Okay... and what would that accomplish?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2015 12:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 1639 (754524)
03-27-2015 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
03-27-2015 10:49 AM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
I'm not saying your outline is not effective. I'm saying it is not feasible.
Right now each party selects its own set of Electors. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state it is his party's slate of electors that, according to the state's election law, are the state's appointed electors. (BTW, the appointed electors from all states combined is said to be the "electoral college" though that term was not used until the early 1800s. It does appear in our present election law however as the "college of electors".) They are the ones who get to go to the state capital, sit in the state senate's chambers and cast their electoral votes, all votes being for their candidate for president and all votes being for their candidate for vice-president. The list of vote-getters sent to Washington has only two names on it. One unanimous selection for president and one unanimous selection for vice-president. That is all. That is the manner in which all but 2 state legislatures in this country have directed the appointment of their state's electors.
This puts a lock on the state's electoral votes for the popular party of the time. It also creates roadblocks to national third-party organizations since the state's electoral votes are never split such that another party can gain any headway over time.
You will not get any of the state legislatures to change this. The popular party will never agree to give up their lock on the electors and neither party will do anything to invite viable competition from a national third party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2015 10:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2015 8:42 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 33 of 1639 (754531)
03-28-2015 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
03-27-2015 8:24 PM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
This puts a lock on the state's electoral votes for the popular party of the time. It also creates roadblocks to national third-party organizations since the state's electoral votes are never split such that another party can gain any headway over time.
There are plenty of people that would like to see third parties be viable on both ends of the spectrum, and developing a way to break the two party system would seem popular.
You will not get any of the state legislatures to change this. The popular party will never agree to give up their lock on the electors and neither party will do anything to invite viable competition from a national third party.
This is where voter initiatives can be employed: take the vote to the people and let them decide, rather than the interested parties.
I'm not saying your outline is not effective. I'm saying it is not feasible.
Progress is worth fighting for, especially when it means revising a broken system.
From the Occupy Movement/s to the independent voters to the Tea Party Birchers people across the political spectrum do not like the two party system.
And the only way to change the system is to change the system. Either by evolution to "form a better union" or by revolution to destroy the current one ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2015 8:24 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 03-28-2015 1:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2015 1:58 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 34 of 1639 (754549)
03-28-2015 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
03-28-2015 8:42 AM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
There are plenty of people that would like to see third parties be viable on both ends of the spectrum, and developing a way to break the two party system would seem popular.
Two words: preferential voting.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2015 8:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2015 4:26 PM nwr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 35 of 1639 (754557)
03-28-2015 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
03-28-2015 1:36 PM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
Two words: preferential voting.
Indeed. Single person single vote is incapable of providing information on second and third choices etc, and when the field is packed with a number of candidates of varying quality it is possible to end up with a bad choice if several good choices split the other votes.
Preferential voting - Wikipedia
quote:
Preferential voting may refer to:
  • Ranked voting systems, all election methods that involve ranking candidates in order of preference
  • Instant-runoff voting, referred to as "preferential voting" in Australia, is one type of ranked voting system.
  • Range voting, in which voters assign points to each candidate
  • Open list, sometimes known as "preferential voting" in Europe and nations such as Sri Lanka
  • Bucklin voting, which was sometimes known as "preferential voting" when used in the United States

Of these I like "instant runoff" voting best - especially for primaries when there can be lots of candidates of many different levels of quality and a mix of positions.
 
Candidates
First
choice:
Second
choice:
Third
choice:
A
B
C
D
If there is no majority, the person with the least votes is eliminated and has their voters first choices replaced by the voters second choices.
If there is still no majority, the person with the least votes is also eliminated and has their voters first (or second) choices replaced by the voters second (or third) choices.
etc
Much more like getting a consensus of who would satisfy the most people than our current system that not only ensconces the two party system, but also tends to pick extreme candidates in each of the parties.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 03-28-2015 1:36 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 03-28-2015 8:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 03-28-2015 9:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 36 of 1639 (754578)
03-28-2015 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
03-28-2015 4:26 PM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
Yes, the Australian system is the one that I had in mind. It works pretty well.
Unfortunately, politicians are unlikely to implement it, since it would probably end the careers of many of them.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2015 4:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 37 of 1639 (754583)
03-28-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
03-28-2015 4:26 PM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
RAZD writes:
Much more like getting a consensus of who would satisfy the most people than our current system that not only ensconces the two party system, but also tends to pick extreme candidates in each of the parties.
We currently enjoy winner-take-all capitalism with ever-greater concentrations of wealth wielding their political clout to keep it that way.
I'm not sure you can change that by tweaking the ballot.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2015 4:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 03-29-2015 9:01 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 38 of 1639 (754590)
03-29-2015 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
03-28-2015 8:42 AM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
I want to speak to the lack of quantification in the statement below. Emphasis added by me
There are plenty of people that would like to see third parties be viable on both ends of the spectrum, and developing a way to break the two party system would seem popular.
What does plenty here mean. Does it mean enough people to usurp (using only constitutional and plausible means) a power assigned in the federal constitution to the individual state legislatures, which are uniformly bodies completely invested in the two party system?
Does plenty even mean "something close to the number of people who are okay with things as they are"?
And what does "seem popular mean"? Is there any possibility of quantifying that phrase in a way that has some political meaning? Stats please?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2015 8:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(5)
Message 39 of 1639 (754594)
03-29-2015 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
03-28-2015 9:56 PM


Re: revamping the voting process - in line with the (current) Constitution
We certainly cannot change it as long as companies and corporations are considered as people with rights.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 03-28-2015 9:56 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 1639 (754691)
03-30-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2015 12:00 AM


Re: Things Ted Cruz Doesn't Know
Dr Adequate writes:
Ted Cruz is the first to officially announce his candidacy
For Presidency? ... Does this cause an issue?
quote:
Born: Rafael Edward Cruz
December 22, 1970 (age 44)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
-Ted Cruz Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2015 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ramoss, posted 03-30-2015 11:19 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2015 11:19 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(2)
Message 41 of 1639 (754692)
03-30-2015 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stile
03-30-2015 10:58 AM


Re: Things Ted Cruz Doesn't Know
His mother was American, so constitutional lawyers feel that would qualify him for being a 'natural born citizen'. This, however, has not gone through the Supreme Court, so while that has probably true, a case might change that. I personally think it should be challenged and go through that supreme court just to put that issue to bed. This issue has nothing to do with my personal dislike of Cruz, but to settle the issue, so the campaigns can deal iwth the issues rather than a distraction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 03-30-2015 10:58 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 03-30-2015 12:56 PM ramoss has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 42 of 1639 (754693)
03-30-2015 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stile
03-30-2015 10:58 AM


Re: Things Ted Cruz Doesn't Know
For Presidency? ... Does this cause an issue?
quote:
Born: Rafael Edward Cruz
December 22, 1970 (age 44)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
-Ted Cruz Wikipedia
See The Brand New Birther Thread ...
For Presidency? ... Does this cause an issue?
Only if he gets elected ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 03-30-2015 10:58 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 43 of 1639 (754702)
03-30-2015 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ramoss
03-30-2015 11:19 AM


Re: Things Ted Cruz Doesn't Know
I personally think it should be challenged and go through that supreme court just to put that issue to bed.
One potential problem with this is that a compelling argument can be made that unless and until he's actually elected, there's nothing for the Supreme Court to decide. The Supremes are constitutionally limited in that they can only decide "Cases and Controversies." They have interpreted this to mean that they cannot answer hypothetical questions, there must be an actual dispute for them to resolve before they can hear a case. If Cruz is never elected, there's nothing for them to decide.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ramoss, posted 03-30-2015 11:19 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 03-30-2015 9:20 PM subbie has replied
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2015 12:24 PM subbie has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 44 of 1639 (754710)
03-30-2015 2:04 PM


And now, the ex-ceo of HP, the one that almost drove it into the ground (Carly Fiorina says it is '90% likely she will run for president'
SHe is the one that said the economy is suffering because american workers are watching porn all day long
Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism - 404 Not Found

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 03-30-2015 3:11 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 46 by ooh-child, posted 03-30-2015 3:49 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 47 by Omnivorous, posted 03-30-2015 3:53 PM ramoss has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 45 of 1639 (754716)
03-30-2015 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ramoss
03-30-2015 2:04 PM


A big business egotist who knows absolutely nothing about government and who's platform is apparently going to be based on blatant lies designed to pander to right wing idiots? She'll fit right in with the rest of the Tea Baggers.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 03-30-2015 2:04 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024