Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[frigidweirdo]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

"Mob rule" seems to be something that comes up a lot. You think DEMOCRACY is mob rule, which means you think dictatorship is better or what?

It would seem the Koch brothers have spent a lot of money to tell people it's "mob rule".

I really don't understand what your problem with democracy is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

But, when it comes to elections, the only things that does matter is the will of the people. States do not elect presidents, people do. Also, under tree he current system, it actually does more to harm the voice of the people, because, as noted previously, this winner take all system actually erases votes.

Again, under the current system, if you have a Democrat win California, this means that the Republican votes in that state are rendered null. This happens for every state. Whoever that state goes for will erase the votes of the people who voted the opposite way.

Again, not that it will ever happen, but let's say cali was split 49%-51%. Those 55 electoral votes are huge, and every Republican voice was never heard. Same with Texas. The Democrat voices are null because it goes mostly red.

Everyone thinks about how a state throws its electoral votes, but doesn't ever think about all of the people who just lost their vote. If you have a state that is divided nearly 50/50, why should only the voices of one half be heard?

I think the idea of a proportional electoral system would work.

No, there are a lot of things that matter in elections besides "the whim of the people". There are ALSO a lot of other ways to measure and consider "the will of the people".

People do NOT elect Presidents. They never have. Just because you THOUGHT that was how it worked, and now - gasp! - you've realized it doesn't and determined, in your "I thought about it for a whole five minutes with my grade-school understanding of the world and government and philosophy" outrage, that that's how it should be, that doesn't mean you're correct or even relevant.

The Electoral College has been part of the Constitution ever since it was written and ratified. That means elections have NEVER worked the way you thought they did, and they've never been supposed to.

As for "winner take all", that's a completely separate issue, and you need to stop conflating the two.

Additionally they keep screaming about votes being erased by the electoral college.

In a popular vote election if one candidate gets a hundred million and the other candidate gets 101 million.....What do they think happens to the hundred million votes? Idiots!

Jo

Well, no, that's not entirely accurate. With a popular vote, or a proportional electoral college, all of the votes count until a winner is decided, and all votes cast are factored into that.

In the current system, once a candidate wins a state, they get all of that states electoral votes, which is essentially saying that the entire state voted for that candidate.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

"Mob rule" seems to be something that comes up a lot. You think DEMOCRACY is mob rule, which means you think dictatorship is better or what?

It would seem the Koch brothers have spent a lot of money to tell people it's "mob rule".

I really don't understand what your problem with democracy is.

Democracy is mob rule, dumbass. The US is a Constitutional Republic.

 

[candycorn]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

 

[iceberg]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

"Mob rule" seems to be something that comes up a lot. You think DEMOCRACY is mob rule, which means you think dictatorship is better or what?

It would seem the Koch brothers have spent a lot of money to tell people it's "mob rule".

I really don't understand what your problem with democracy is.

you don't understand how democracy works either, it would seem.

the constitution was written to prevent a high concentration of people in 1 area from telling people in remote areas how to live. that seems to upset you.

get help soon.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Pew Research: The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

Yawn... boring.

Fact is, the GOP always gets 45% to 50% of the vote, and teh Democrat always get 48-55% of the vote, so at BEST we are talking about maybe 8% of the electorate that is in play any given year. I'm sure a lot of people call themselves 'independents', because, frankly, both parties are kind of embarrassing. But when the rubber hits the road... not so much.

/——/ Facts are boring? We’ll should just take your word on everything. And just because you’re registered to one party does mean that vote is locked in. Dems voted for Trump and some are pubs voted for Hildabeast.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

 

[longknife]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

You're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Then, if political affiliation is so important to you, why the hell would you move to Wyoming? Get real.

 

[iceberg]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

and that is my entire point as to why we don't need to change to popular vote. now people are more than willing to give it a run but given the requirements to change such a huge foundation of our government, it won't fly. end of story.

it also does very much so come out as sour grapes. WAH WE LOST BUT WON POP VOTE ERGO WE SHOULD BE WINNERS WAH.

lord i'm so tired of that pyrrhic victory cry. had they won this way these same people would be defending our current process to the death. but give them a hurtful loss to sting their buttcheeks for at least 4 years, system must be changed. this idea of constant "instant gratification" has really messed with a lot of peoples minds. it works for fast food and microwaves and sometimes karma but it never works for going through the motions of life itself.

sometimes you flat out don't like our president but that doesn't change that president won via our system in place; which has been in place for 250+ years. it doesn't change the fact that you can still PRODUCTIVELY get involved into our political system and stop whining like a spoiled child mad they won't get the gobstopper.

but human nature is what it is and there are simply times society as a whole freaks out. that is where we are today. they won't be able to get this changed, they'll learn to live with it somehow even if that means monthly "scream at the sky" sessions. but those taking it too far by rioting / getting a mob outside of peoples homes are eventually going to get shot and force action from the gov to shut that shit down once and for all.

they'll be more whining about the system not being fair but the only thing not fair were their own views on life. they need to change, not the world.

 

[candycorn]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

Not true. If you don’t like the remedy I prescribe (the PE having to win the plurality of the Popular Vote overall, the plurality of the 26 states individual popular votes, as well as the plurality of electoral college) and if you don’t win all three, the 12th Amendment takes over…. that’s cool. But the fact of the matter is that the remedy I prescribed would have only come up twice during my lifetime; 2000 and 2016 when the EC winner didn’t win the popular vote. However, in each of those cases the GOP controlled the House in each case so the outcome would have not been different at all.

I’m a liberal.

I break with almost all other liberals insofar as I see no good reason to not have a nationwide picture ID card that must be presented when one casts a ballot as long as the ID card is free to the voter.

To me, we have a very easy way to make the voting process as sterile as possible. Why not do it?

The same thing applies to the way we elect our President. In 1800, counting the votes was tedious, in 1900 it was tedious, in 1950 it was tedious. In 2018, it is done almost effortlessly. Why not leverage those technological advancements to yield a better result where the people who live here have a direct hand in deciding who leads us?

If there are no improvements made (I have yet to hear a good reason to not improve the system) however, I agree, leave it the way it is. The electoral college is one of the best ideas we have had.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

Not true. If you don’t like the remedy I prescribe (the PE having to win the plurality of the Popular Vote overall, the plurality of the 26 states individual popular votes, as well as the plurality of electoral college) and if you don’t win all three, the 12th Amendment takes over…. that’s cool. But the fact of the matter is that the remedy I prescribed would have only come up twice during my lifetime; 2000 and 2016 when the EC winner didn’t win the popular vote. However, in each of those cases the GOP controlled the House in each case so the outcome would have not been different at all.

I’m a liberal.

I break with almost all other liberals insofar as I see no good reason to not have a nationwide picture ID card that must be presented when one casts a ballot as long as the ID card is free to the voter.

To me, we have a very easy way to make the voting process as sterile as possible. Why not do it?

The same thing applies to the way we elect our President. In 1800, counting the votes was tedious, in 1900 it was tedious, in 1950 it was tedious. In 2018, it is done almost effortlessly. Why not leverage those technological advancements to yield a better result where the people who live here have a direct hand in deciding who leads us?

If there are no improvements made (I have yet to hear a good reason to not improve the system) however, I agree, leave it the way it is. The electoral college is one of the best ideas we have had.

/----/ Libs will find a way to work around Voter ID laws. Desk top publishing can generate excellent forgeries for driver's licenses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Then, if political affiliation is so important to you, why the hell would you move to Wyoming? Get real.

Hmm... maybe because your job says so.

That's hardly the point and your question is ignoring the reality of DEMOCRACY, or lack of it in the US.

 

[candycorn]

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

Not true. If you don’t like the remedy I prescribe (the PE having to win the plurality of the Popular Vote overall, the plurality of the 26 states individual popular votes, as well as the plurality of electoral college) and if you don’t win all three, the 12th Amendment takes over…. that’s cool. But the fact of the matter is that the remedy I prescribed would have only come up twice during my lifetime; 2000 and 2016 when the EC winner didn’t win the popular vote. However, in each of those cases the GOP controlled the House in each case so the outcome would have not been different at all.

I’m a liberal.

I break with almost all other liberals insofar as I see no good reason to not have a nationwide picture ID card that must be presented when one casts a ballot as long as the ID card is free to the voter.

To me, we have a very easy way to make the voting process as sterile as possible. Why not do it?

The same thing applies to the way we elect our President. In 1800, counting the votes was tedious, in 1900 it was tedious, in 1950 it was tedious. In 2018, it is done almost effortlessly. Why not leverage those technological advancements to yield a better result where the people who live here have a direct hand in deciding who leads us?

If there are no improvements made (I have yet to hear a good reason to not improve the system) however, I agree, leave it the way it is. The electoral college is one of the best ideas we have had.

/----/ Libs will find a way to work around Voter ID laws. Desk top publishing can generate excellent forgeries for driver's licenses.

You’re really stupid.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

Not true. If you don’t like the remedy I prescribe (the PE having to win the plurality of the Popular Vote overall, the plurality of the 26 states individual popular votes, as well as the plurality of electoral college) and if you don’t win all three, the 12th Amendment takes over…. that’s cool. But the fact of the matter is that the remedy I prescribed would have only come up twice during my lifetime; 2000 and 2016 when the EC winner didn’t win the popular vote. However, in each of those cases the GOP controlled the House in each case so the outcome would have not been different at all.

I’m a liberal.

I break with almost all other liberals insofar as I see no good reason to not have a nationwide picture ID card that must be presented when one casts a ballot as long as the ID card is free to the voter.

To me, we have a very easy way to make the voting process as sterile as possible. Why not do it?

The same thing applies to the way we elect our President. In 1800, counting the votes was tedious, in 1900 it was tedious, in 1950 it was tedious. In 2018, it is done almost effortlessly. Why not leverage those technological advancements to yield a better result where the people who live here have a direct hand in deciding who leads us?

If there are no improvements made (I have yet to hear a good reason to not improve the system) however, I agree, leave it the way it is. The electoral college is one of the best ideas we have had.

Your daydream will never happen, it's a nice thought, though.

 

[dannyboys]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How many small states according to population size that are historically DEM leaning would want to change to a popular vote system?
The answer is none of them. They all know political parties rise and fall. When the REPs are in power think what could happen.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I didn’t a understand your first question ‘explain why it isn’t....’.

It means explain why it's a valid system for electing a head of state, yet somehow not a valid system for electing the head of a state. It's the same thing in microcosm. If it's a valid system, then "electors in Suillivan County should be going to Harrisburg and saying "wow it's incredible, everybody in our county voted for Skinflint so he gets all our votes ---- when Skinflint actually got 38% in that county.

But states don't do that, do they. Skinflint gets his 38%, the other candidates get what they got, it's all tallied statewide and the totals are all added up, one voter, one vote, and whoever ends up with the most votes is the next Governor and nobody calls it a "tyranny of the majority".

Are we actually suggesting all 50 states are doing it wrong and only the POTUS election --- where my state, in which more than 50% of us voted against Rump, yet he got 100% of our EV --- is doing it right?

Dafuck kind of "election" is that?

Regarding the winner take all system- Any state can change from the winner take all system if they choose. You’re right, it isn’t in the constitution. It should be obvious why they don’t. You know why, don’t you?

I think I do but let's hear yours. Mine will be too ironic.

There is nothing ironic about it. It’s obvious why states stick with WTA. What possible reason would they have for changing it?

California could vote for proportional vote for their delegates, but it’s primarily a democratic state, and all their delegates go to the democratic canidate. If they went proportional then they would be giving some of their delegates to the Republican canidate. All the states keep WTA because it is the best way to maximize their influence. Without WTA smaller states would have no influence and larger states would have less. You see, states like their autonomy.

Eh --- not quite. Has nothing to do with political parties. And you'll find that a lot of states that usually vote one way for POTUS, are internally run by the opposite party anyway. No, it's really about self-interest -- you were right about maximizing their influence in that way -- in pushing their own candidates, which is where it started. If a candidate happens to hail from Virginia, then Virginia can push that person stronger, and perhaps over the top, by cascading all of its votes to them regardless what a popular vote might have been. And then Pennsylvania goes, "well if they're gonna do that then we're gonna do it too", and then Massachusetts muses the same thing, etc etc etc. So to me the question isn't "why does any state do it", it's "why do they all do it".*

So in effect, whereas the Constitution had in mind states rendering their individual considered decisions on who should get the Presidency, which means each state takes context into consideration, instead of that states are basically going HEY HEY LOOKA ME!! . And to counteract that state going HEY LOOKA ME the next state goes HEY LOOKA ME too, and if everybody is going HEY LOOKA ME, then the impact of any one going HEY LOOKA ME becomes part of the wallpaper. Which means any given state has succeeded in two things: one, counteracting the narcissism of the rival state, and two, demolishing the whole purpose of voting in the first place. Sorry that's just too expensive for no more return than an ego trip.

And this is where the irony kicks in (I haven't stated it yet so you haven't seen it) -- for all the Doubletalkian babble about "Tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule", the several states --- 48 of them anyway* ---- are practicing a very REAL mob mentality: "we're just doing it because everybody else is doing it and we're too stupid to think beyond that level".

Or if you like a double irony, state A is going WTA to block the vote of state B by artificially inflating its vote the same way A did, which means the system has infected the Electoral College with the same disease it infects the individual voter with --- voting not in the positive for candidate X, but in the negative against candidate Y.


*two states, Nebraska and Maine, break up their vote according to Congressional district instead of the whole state, but it still amounts to the same thing on a smaller level since everybody's vote in that district gets cascaded into a unanimous one. Compared to an entire state going to WTA it's akin to the difference between a dislocated shoulder and a shattered one.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I didn’t a understand your first question ‘explain why it isn’t....’.

It means explain why it's a valid system for electing a head of state, yet somehow not a valid system for electing the head of a state. It's the same thing in microcosm. If it's a valid system, then "electors in Suillivan County should be going to Harrisburg and saying "wow it's incredible, everybody in our county voted for Skinflint so he gets all our votes ---- when Skinflint actually got 38% in that county.

But states don't do that, do they. Skinflint gets his 38%, the other candidates get what they got, it's all tallied statewide and the totals are all added up, one voter, one vote, and whoever ends up with the most votes is the next Governor and nobody calls it a "tyranny of the majority".

Are we actually suggesting all 50 states are doing it wrong and only the POTUS election --- where my state, in which more than 50% of us voted against Rump, yet he got 100% of our EV --- is doing it right?

Dafuck kind of "election" is that?

Regarding the winner take all system- Any state can change from the winner take all system if they choose. You’re right, it isn’t in the constitution. It should be obvious why they don’t. You know why, don’t you?

I think I do but let's hear yours. Mine will be too ironic.

There is nothing ironic about it. It’s obvious why states stick with WTA. What possible reason would they have for changing it?

California could vote for proportional vote for their delegates, but it’s primarily a democratic state, and all their delegates go to the democratic canidate. If they went proportional then they would be giving some of their delegates to the Republican canidate. All the states keep WTA because it is the best way to maximize their influence. Without WTA smaller states would have no influence and larger states would have less. You see, states like their autonomy.

Eh --- not quite. Has nothing to do with political parties. And you'll find that a lot of states that usually vote one way for POTUS, are internally run by the opposite party anyway. No, it's really about self-interest -- you were right about maximizing their influence in that way -- in pushing their own candidates, which is where it started. If a candidate happens to hail from Virginia, then Virginia can push that person stronger, and perhaps over the top, by cascading all of its votes to them regardless what a popular vote might have been. And then Pennsylvania goes, "well if they're gonna do that then we're gonna do it too", and then Massachusetts muses the same thing, etc etc etc. So to me the question isn't "why does any state do it", it's "why do they all do it".*

And this is where the irony kicks in (I haven't stated it yet so you haven't seen it) -- for all the Doubletalkian babble about "Tyrannies of the majority" and "mob rule", the several states --- 48 of them anyway ---- are practicing a very REAL mob mentality: "we're just doing it because everybody else is doing it and we're too stupid to think beyond that level".


*two states, Nebraska and Maine, break up their vote according to Congressional district instead of the whole state, but it still amounts to the same thing on a smaller level since everybody's vote in that district gets cascaded into a unanimous one. Compared to an entire state going to WTA it's akin to the difference between a dislocated shoulder and a shattered one.

 

[Pogo]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Lets examine your dumb thoughts. If California and NY start making all decisions for every other state, how long do you think those other states will want to remain in the Union? You are so simplistic and naive. There is a reason we dont use a "popular vote" system.

And there's a reason nobody takes your posts seriously, which is that propensity to plug in strawman premises as if they're a fait accompli. You don't think that actually sells, do you?

Yeah sorry Doodles, if you wanna run with the ball of "California and NY making all decisions" the first thing you have to do is prove that ball exists. If you can do that, THEN you can run with it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Lets examine your dumb thoughts. If California and NY start making all decisions for every other state, how long do you think those other states will want to remain in the Union? You are so simplistic and naive. There is a reason we dont use a "popular vote" system.

And there's a reason nobody takes your posts seriously, which is that propensity to plug in strawman premises as if they're a fait accompli. You don't think that actually sells, do you?

Oh! Teh irony!