Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?· Page 2

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

#11

:sigh:

had to look up 'whence'

rabidgopher04
Member

12 years ago

#12

I don't know much about this, hence me asking, how does the House of Representatives balance the electoral votes? I've always kind of been baffled how a candidate could get less actual "person" votes and still lose. The article outlined something else that confuses me, how can a state with far less population have the same amount (or more) electoral votes than one that has a larger population?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Two different issues. I meant that the House of Representatives balances out the Senate which are all (mostly) unrelated to the Electoral College.

States with smaller populations do not have the same or more electoral votes as larger states. Electoral votes, just like the number of representatives per state in the House of Representatives, are based on population. The census every 10 years is used to determine how to split the 435 seats in the House; I believe it also determines the number of electoral votes per state.

Amazing Bacon Delivery Service! Never be without good bacon again.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#13

Indirectly, yes. The number of Electoral Votes per state is equal to the number of representatives and senators that state sends to Washington, D.C.

By the way, I forgot to mention in my previous post that it is the states' own fault that the Electoral College is not as democratic as it could be. In almost every state, Electoral College votes are apportioned on a "winner-take-all" basis, rather than proportionately according to the popular vote in that state. As far as I know, these rules are established by the state electoral commissions, as opposed to being written into the state constitutions, and thus could be amended at will. If the states wanted to make the Electoral College more responsive to the popular vote, they could accomplish that quite easily.

Porforis
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#14

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

But what state wants to be THAT STATE that swings an election? Seems like it should be an all or none thing.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#15

So you think it is better for one vote to win an inordinately disproportionate percentage of the Electoral College votes? The current process also heavily skews campaigning, because the incentive is to focus primarily on states with lots of Electoral College votes.

I don't understand your logic. Rather than being perceived as a bad thing, I would think states would love to be "that state." It could be seen as a good thing, empowering individual states. I think the main reason for the all-or-nothing systems is simply convenience: in a proportional system, states might be sending Electors from multiple parties. That actually would not be much of a problem (beyond deciding which Electors got sent), since each state partie appoints its own slate of Electors.

Porforis
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#16

First off, sorry if I'm hard to understand. Extremely tired and putting off going to bed.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

I don't think it's better, but I don't think that just a small handful of states handing out EC votes based on popular vote is going to do much of anything in the real world to make our country better. Sure, it could mean the difference between having a "bad" guy elected and a "good" guy elected, but that possibility swings both ways. I know that we both swing further to the right on the subject of state rights than most, but I think that without the vast majority of states actually divvying up EC votes based on popular vote, the difference is going to be none to negligible. Maybe I'm too conservative here, but I'd rather not change the status quo unless there's a clear plan to make the status quo better.

I don't understand your logic. Rather than being perceived as a bad thing, I would think states would love to be "that state." It could be seen as a good thing, empowering individual states.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

And what tangible, real-world effect would said empowerment bring? Sure, if one state does it, then the next cycle 10 states do it, then the next cycle all (or almost all) the states do it, awesome. Cool. But forgive me if I've lost almost all of my faith in our ability to self-govern. The masses want kings that can make all their problems go away and say things that make them feel good, they don't want to have more control over their own state/country.

I think the main reason for the all-or-nothing systems is simply convenience: in a proportional system, states might be sending Electors from multiple parties. That actually would not be much of a problem (beyond deciding which Electors got sent), since each state partie appoints its own slate of Electors.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

I'll admit my knowledge of the history of the electoral college is somewhat lacking (so long since high school already? o_o), but I would not be surprised at all if the "tradition" of awarding votes all to one candidate was born out of convenience.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#17

I agree with most of your points. I personally am not necessarily advocating any changes to the Electoral College either. My main point is that many of the current objections to the undemocratic nature of that institution could be addressed by eliminating the winner-take-all system.

This is purely an educated guess on my part (it has been quite a while since I did any reading on it), but I think that originally, most states did apportion their EC votes based on the popular vote. However, the state electoral commissions are appointed (more or less) by the state parties, and thus they have a pretty strong incentive to promote the winner-take-all system, since it helps consolidate the power of the current majority party. They don't have much desire to apportion votes to the opposition parties.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

#18

I can't see a reason not to.

wpr
Preferred Member

11 years ago

#19

I can't see a reason not to.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

with the shitheads we have in Washington there is no way they could put together a legal document that would be the centerpiece for the next 10 years little alone one that the nation could follow for the next 200 years. not to mention being a blue print for many nations around the world.

give Congress their millions in pay and perks along with the prestige and power they crave and after 20-30 years of slopping around in the trough get them the hell out of there before they do any real harm like attempt to add an amendment to the Constitution. God forbid they actually try and rewrite it.

Wade
Veteran Member

11 years ago

#20

Frankly, I have seen nothing to change the opinions I set forth and updates I recommended a year ago. Rather than go on again at length and bore everyone, I'll just tell everyone to re-read what I said there if they are interested.

I will only say that I'm even less optimistic than I was then.

While those of you who have pointed out that "we're a republic, not a democracy" are correct as a matter of original intent, I don't think that's relevant any more. Because most Americans (a) don't know the difference, (b) believe in populist/progressivist enable-the-power-of-all "democracy" notions far more than they believe in Madisonian/Jeffersonian "limitation-the-power-of-any" constitutional republicanism, or (c) both.

Any constitutional change today, whether tinkering through individual amendments or radical change through open constitutional convention, facebooking, whatever, is going to follow paths formed from the ideals of populist/progressive/social democracy. Not the paths of Burke/Paine/Madison/Jefferson republicanism.

And we've got far too many people who are perfectly capable of being the next Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre.

I'm not sure we have any who are capable of being George Washington.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (33m) : having a great long snapper is gold

Zero2Cool (6h) : LaFleur looking like he had some weight. Coachin will do that lol

Zero2Cool (7h) : Thanks Mucky and whomever created topcos for each pick!

Zero2Cool (7h) : Insane about Kingsley

dfosterf (10h) : Putring it here so Mucky sees it. He was our guy!

dfosterf (10h) : Bowden long snapper Wisconsin. Consensus best LS in college.

dfosterf (10h) : We got Peter Bowde

dfosterf (11h) : I personally interpret that as a partial tear that can be recovered from with rehab

dfosterf (11h) : MLF said Kingsley Enagbare did NOT tear his ACL and did NOT require surgery, and that he is "looking good" for the 2024 season!

beast (22h) : T.O. son signs with the 49ers

Mucky Tundra (23h) : damn those vikings

beast (23h) : UDFA Vikings sign TE – Trey Knox, South Carolina

beast (27-Apr) : Kitchen was all high from Miami, he was more lucky than talented in 2022 and it showed in 2023

beast (27-Apr) : Reportedly Packers have UDFAs Jennings and Jones

beast (27-Apr) : OL – Donovan Jennings, USF OT – Trente Jones, Michigan

TheKanataThrilla (27-Apr) : Interesting draft. A bit shocked that we didn't select an early CB. Definitely have Safety help. Pretty happy overall.

dhazer (27-Apr) : wow the last 2 picks are really stupid and probably will be special teams players Top 10 draft pick next year book it

TheKanataThrilla (27-Apr) : I think he ended up with a terrible RAS score

dhazer (27-Apr) : Anyone know what went on with Kitchens from Florida? At 1 point he was to be the Packers 1st round and he is way down the board now

Martha Careful (27-Apr) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it

Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?

Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Packers looking to trade up

Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Flag?

Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Sag?

Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : It rhymes with "bag."

beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word

Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.

Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck

beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight

beast (25-Apr) : Fuck

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Love you NSD

Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.

Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?

Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk

Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : @DMRussini

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!

dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)

dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol

beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)

Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2023 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM

Bears

38 - 20

Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM

Falcons

24 - 25

Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM

SAINTS

18 - 17

Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM

LIONS

20 - 34

Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM

Raiders

13 - 17

Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

17 - 19

Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

10 - 24

Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM

RAMS

20 - 3

Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM

Steelers

19 - 23

Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM

CHARGERS

23 - 20

Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM

Lions

29 - 22

Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM

CHIEFS

27 - 19

Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM

Giants

22 - 24

Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM

BUCCANEERS

20 - 34

Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM

Panthers

33 - 30

Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM

Vikings

33 - 10

Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM

BEARS

17 - 9

Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM

Cowboys

48 - 32

Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM

49ers

21 - 24