You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Porforis  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:33:20 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,733
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 167
Applause Received: 328

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

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel Go to Quoted Post
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 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.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
UserPostedImage
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:45:08 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,691
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 365
Applause Received: 263

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.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:28:23 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,229
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

I can't see a reason not to.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline wpr  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:11:16 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,425
Applause Received: 1,204

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I can't see a reason not to.


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.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Wade  
#20 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:13:48 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,657
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 563
Applause Received: 589

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.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 11/14/2012(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:38:19 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,425
Applause Received: 1,204

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
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.


Amen brother. And that is a shame.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Pack93z  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:04:33 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,605
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 937

Update the constitution for what?

Like the current and recent administrations adhere to it anyway. d'oh!
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:23:14 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,229
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Update the constitution for what?

Like the current and recent administrations adhere to it anyway. d'oh!


update it to ... the President has to get the Packers logo tattooed on their forehead and pledge allegiance to green and gold everyday when he wakes up.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#24 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:20:53 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,650
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 347

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel Go to Quoted Post
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.


I have said for a while that the all or none electoral systems most states use isn't the way it should be.

Use CA for example, nobody campaigns there because it always goes Democrat. When watching the results live. When the CA polls closed, they gave Obama the win the next minute. 55 electoral votes, BAM. What should be done is, look at look at how much of the popular vote each candidate gets, and using percentage, divide and give the electorals.

Obama 59.3%, or 32 electorals.
Romney 38.3%, or 21 electorals.

Which is 53 leaving 2 unallocated. Any unallocated electorals would go to whoever wins the state popular vote.

This should remove the "My vote doesn't count" line of thinking because one vote could be the difference between getting 21 or 22 electoral votes. It would make each state important so candidates would need to go to them all.

The thing is, I've gone back and through Reagan, all results would have been the same. Close in most cases but still the same results.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline vikesrule  
#25 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:52:55 AM(UTC)
vikesrule

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,121
Joined: 8/4/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 193

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I have said for a while that the all or none electoral systems most states use isn't the way it should be.
...The thing is, I've gone back and through Reagan, all results would have been the same. Close in most cases but still the same results.


Hot damn, item #1 is something that I agree with PackFanWithTwins on.
Document this one folks, it will probably be one of the very few time that this occurs.Big Grin


I'd like to see your breakdown of the 2000 Presidential election.

Offline Wade  
#26 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:49:13 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,657
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 563
Applause Received: 589

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I have said for a while that the all or none electoral systems most states use isn't the way it should be.

Use CA for example, nobody campaigns there because it always goes Democrat. When watching the results live. When the CA polls closed, they gave Obama the win the next minute. 55 electoral votes, BAM. What should be done is, look at look at how much of the popular vote each candidate gets, and using percentage, divide and give the electorals.

Obama 59.3%, or 32 electorals.
Romney 38.3%, or 21 electorals.

Which is 53 leaving 2 unallocated. Any unallocated electorals would go to whoever wins the state popular vote.

This should remove the "My vote doesn't count" line of thinking because one vote could be the difference between getting 21 or 22 electoral votes. It would make each state important so candidates would need to go to them all.

The thing is, I've gone back and through Reagan, all results would have been the same. Close in most cases but still the same results.


I'm curious. Does your method here take into account that voting patterns might be different if people knew going in that electoral votes would be proportionately assigned? Would the popular vote in California fall into the same percentages if they knew vote counting would take more than a minute after poll closing?
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#27 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:54:55 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,650
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 347

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
I'm curious. Does your method here take into account that voting patterns might be different if people knew going in that electoral votes would be proportionately assigned? Would the popular vote in California fall into the same percentages if they knew vote counting would take more than a minute after poll closing?


I don't think the method cares :)

There is no way to tell what the percentages would do. My guess is, they would not change a bunch. I just see it as making each vote more important and each state more equal in importance. I think it would help with better turnout, and keeping more of the population involved. There would be no excuse for saying, I'm not voting because my state always does this or that.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.375 seconds.