|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do the Right Thing Tomorrow, Yanks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Reed and Pinkerton were in absolute denial mode about the election.
That's what I am seeing at several places. The most outspoken Republicans seem to know exactly what they must do:
Obviously the wording of the last of those is not what they would use. I'm thinking that onifre must be cheering all the way to the stand up comic circuit.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The election results if only white males had the vote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi hooah212002
The electoral college is FUCKED and needs to go the way of the dodo bird (but it was fine in 2000). This requires a constitutional amendment, and I project that it will never occur. A more reasonable change would be to update the electoral college and use it to improve our election system:
This ensures that (a) everyone's vote counts, (b) close contests are properly counted (imagine the results if this had been in effect for Bus v Gore) and (c) third parties can grow to the point of being viable contenders. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What is wrong with the system as it is? It puts the power to choose President into the hands of each individual state rather than into the hands of the people as a whole.
Isn't that how all of our elections work? I didn't get to decide who California sent to D.C. as one of their senators. The people of California decided as a state who they wanted in their senate chair. Similarly, I didn't get to decide who California supported for President; the people of California decided as a state who they supported for President. It's state-based, like every other election for Federal office in the country. What do you have against the States?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment? The formula for apportioning the electoral college votes is part of the constitution. The formula is electoral votes = senators + house reps.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So you are okay with the fact that everyone in Rhode Island's vote for president counts more than yours? Why should that be the case? RI senator is not your senator, but you share a president.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1513 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
No. The Constitution says,
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Emphasis added. Nothing requires the states to use any particular method to determine how to decide who the electors shall be. And in fact, two states already apportion electors now, Maine and Nebraska.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jon,
What is wrong with the system as it is? It doesn't allow for third party candidates to be anything more than spoilers, thus reinforcing the two party grip on american politics.
It puts the power to choose President into the hands of each individual state rather than into the hands of the people as a whole. That would still be true.
What do you have against the States? Nothing. What I would like to see is more fair distribution of electoral college members (the proportional representation as used by Maine and Nebraska:
quote: Now look at what the constitution originally says.
quote: The constitution does not say anything about how the electors are appointer, it does not require either proportional representation nor winner take all. So the only differences I advocate are (1) making all states proportional and (2) not releasing vote counts\results until the electoral college meets. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So you are okay with the fact that everyone in Rhode Island's vote for president counts more than yours? I am okay with the fact that each State chooses as a single entity which presidential candidate it wants in the White House and that the weight of that choice is a factor of the state's population. Can you tell me for which other Federal offices the American people as a whole vote directly rather than on a state-by-state basis?
Why should that be the case? Why shouldn't it? Per person, Rhode Island also has more U.S. representatives than Minnesota. The Electoral College is perhaps unnecessary, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It is pretty much in line with how the rest of the system worksthat is, each person's vote only sort of kind of counts the same as everyone else's vote. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1725 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
What do you have against the States? They're terrible and useless and should be disbanded. There's a legitimate need for local government and a legitimate need for national government. There's no rational purpose for having intermediate pseudo-state government in between. Let them persist as historical curiosities, boundaries on a map. But state legislatures should not be allowed to make law. Your vote shouldn't matter more or less based on the population of your state, or whether you live in a city or a farm. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes
Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment? The formula for apportioning the electoral college votes is part of the constitution. The formula is electoral votes = senators + house reps. See Message 143. This would not be changed, what would change is going from winner-take-all to a proportional systems such as what is used in Maine and Nebraska. You still would need 272 votes to win, but large states with win-all representation would not be more "important" to winning. Curiously, there is also no provision that electors, once chosen, have to cast votes for the people they were picked to represent -- they could conceivably change the outcome by casting votes for someone else. This would normally create a great ruckus and probably some lawsuits, however consider an elector that represents a third party changing to choose the "lesser if two evils (in their opinion)" to prevent\curtail the winning of a lesser desirable candidate: this would enhance to status of third (or fourth) parties without incurring the spoiler effect. The original intent, unless I am badly mistaken from my reading, was that discussions would occur among the electors to arrive at their making their best choice among the candidates to represent their constituents votes -- whether it was the person voted for or someone of similar politics. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3971 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Yes, I know, essentially bare links.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyrannyFrom the Archive: Math Against Tyranny This is a reissue of a 1996 article - I probably have the paper version stored away somewhere. Also:
Page not found | Department of Psychology
The Electoral College: Bulwark Against Fraud MooseProfessor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1851 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
They're terrible and useless and should be disbanded. There's a legitimate need for local government and a legitimate need for national government. There's no rational purpose for having intermediate pseudo-state government in between. Let them persist as historical curiosities, boundaries on a map. But state legislatures should not be allowed to make law. Your vote shouldn't matter more or less based on the population of your state, or whether you live in a city or a farm.
They do not need disbanded. They worry about issues of state, that the Federal government is not equipped to manage. For that reason states abuse the ignorance of the system that does not enforce Federal Liberty rights. Law is the problem, not the lawmakers. Lawmakers have too much freedom in penning laws. The guidelines of federal law are not taken seriously, mostly because of a lack of definition. (i.e. Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.) I believe the voting system is very flawed. From American Idol type shows, many different voting methods were tried to get a more accurate consensus of what the voter really wanted. Mathematically, it would seem we already have a better method; the issue would be passing it into law.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
They're terrible and useless and should be disbanded. There's a legitimate need for local government and a legitimate need for national government. There's no rational purpose for having intermediate pseudo-state government in between. State governments handle matters not suitable to be handled by local or Federal government.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1725 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
State governments handle matters not suitable to be handled by local or Federal government. There are no such matters. States are simultaneously too large (they encompass too many different types of land and community) and not large enough (they don't encompass all instances of a land or community type.) Anything relevant to a single geographic area is appropriate for the local government. Anything relevant to multiple communities as a whole is appropriate for the national government, because it's a problem faced by all communities.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024