Not for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are and are just annoyances these days. Let's live nationally, not "stately".
The worst problems are from on State to another. States exist for local problems. Most of our disputes are among States. Let's just decide these disputes nationally and be done with them.
There are times when having the Fed step in, is a good thing (local idiots). There are times when having the Fed step in, is a bad thing (DC idiots). That is the problem with circumstantial political advocacy ... it is only true for one election cycle.
But, but, but eliminating the electoral college would be unconstitutional .
Right now there is no way in hell republicans would ever consider it as it's the only reason Trump will be our next president. Good luck with getting them to go along. In fact the last two republican presidents only got to the white house was because of the electoral college. They don't represent the majority, but still get the prize.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AM
Not for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are and are just annoyances these days. Let's live nationally, not "stately".
But see, if that happened, and there were no borders, all the swamp dwellers and southern hill billies would merge with the northern parts, edumacation would crumble, and chickens would be running around the white house lawn!
Quote from: Munch on November 17, 2016, 11:31:42 AM
But see, if that happened, and there were no borders, all the swamp dwellers and southern hill billies would merge with the northern parts, edumacation would crumble, and chickens would be running around the white house lawn!
Free range chickens ... who support open carry ;-)
It's not going to happen any time soon. There have only been 5 presidents in history who lost the popular vote, but still one the election. Two of those, fucking 40%, were Republicans elected within a 16 year period, just 5 elections. And shit gets even worse for them when you go with the popular vote for all elections. Gerrymandering is their main source of power and a popular vote makes that disappear over night.
Personally, I don't think the laws should be different between states. States DEFINITELY should not be able to enact laws which effect elections on the national level, such as barring convicted felons from voting and voter ID laws. The states shouldn't even be in charge of anything to do with the election process for offices at the federal level, including deciding polling places and hours. They have proved themselves to be irresponsible when doing so at every chance.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AM
Not for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are and are just annoyances these days. Let's live nationally, not "stately".
The worst problems are from on State to another. States exist for local problems. Most of our disputes are among States. Let's just decide these disputes nationally and be done with them.
Thus all states must have input into the election of president.
Nor do I recall any real disputes between states, at least not since 1865, most disputed are between states and the overbearing federal government, mandating that every state must have a voice, and the electoral college does that.
Before 1861, there was Bloody Kansas ... but that was mostly a war between settlers within Kansas. Abolitionists in the North fought slavery, but were mostly impotent ... only John Brown (from Kansas) raised a weapon in anger, and he was shut down pronto.
Oh no, we definitely need to keep the electoral college system. This shit is way too entertaining.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc8k_D3yYoE/Tw4IyOKMysI/AAAAAAAAAls/awgasVzJMfA/s320/Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif)
No need to keep the Constitution, if you aren't going to follow it (since 1950). Go to the Chinese system ... one party authoritarian state ... only party members get to vote on party candidates. Both R and D agree on this, they only disagree as to who the One Party is going to be.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AMNot for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are and are just annoyances these days. Let's live nationally, not "stately".
Agreed. It's really odd how much things change from one state to another. Marijuana legality, education, minimum wage, gun laws, and until recently, gay marriage. It's less like one country and more like 50 countries.
I do like the idea of states being like little public policy laboratories, to see how political ideas work out in the real world. However, certain things like human rights should be nationwide. No state should have the right to oppress its people.
But the electoral college should go. Rinky-dink states like Wyoming are over-represented. The president should be the sole representative of the people. There should be other mechanisms in place to ensure that dangerous demagogues don't get voted in.
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2016, 05:12:03 AM
No need to keep the Constitution, if you aren't going to follow it (since 1950). Go to the Chinese system ... one party authoritarian state ... only party members get to vote on party candidates. Both R and D agree on this, they only disagree as to who the One Party is going to be.
But it shouldn't be carved in stone either. Things change, we evolve. That's why you have 'amendments'.
China, Russia and other authoritarian states had to adapt to a more capitalist system with free enterprise and ownership. Otherwise they would not be competitive in a global market. I guess having no say in the political process is more tolerable when people have opportunities otherwise. North Korea is the extreme authoritarian state. It's a necrocracy, Kim Jong-il is president forever, despite being dead for years. No private enterprise, no private ownership.
The last time I checked (some votes are still counted), Hillary Clinton had over 800,000 votes more that Trump. So all these votes are ignored. That can't be the best system.
Unfortunately there are many uncounted ballots in Utah ... and reports of ballots elsewhere that shouldn't be counted at all. Since we aren't going to be honest about it (trillions of dollars at stake), I see no reason to allow elections at all, except in the D-Party Congress ... they can be very careful who they let into the Commissariat (sorry Bernie) .. which commissars are allowed to vote (sorry Elizabeth) .. if there is any problem, the Chairman can treat them like Saddam Hussein treated the Iraqi Parliament at times (please invite Comrade Abdul outside for a little chat ... "sounds of shots being fired").
People have been complaining about the electoral college since Al Gore in 2000, but getting rid of it would be a really bad idea. The problem with moving to the popular vote is corruption. The money needed to actually run in all fifty states would be much more than whats normal now, and would give corporations and lobbyists even more say in government than they already have. Getting rid of the electoral college makes sense at a glance, but would have serious unintended consequences.
Quote from: Atheon on November 18, 2016, 10:48:53 AMThere should be other mechanisms in place to ensure that dangerous demagogues don't get voted in.
Like colleges. /snark
I like this guys take on it.
"We aren't one big pure democracy, by the founders intent, we 50 smaller autonomous states. 50 smaller democratic republics who have control over most aspects of their daily lives, with a federal government who provides general welfare and defense."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VIhAN5ULXk
Quote from: Jack89 on November 19, 2016, 05:15:52 PM
I like this guys take on it.
"We aren't one big pure democracy, by the founders intent, we 50 smaller autonomous states. 50 smaller democratic republics who have control over most aspects of their daily lives, with a federal government who provides general welfare and defense.
That's how it was conceived, but in practice the United States works as a single entity, with the states acting as very large counties.
The guy is wrong on many levels. He compares a baseball game to presidential elections? Regardless of hits, the most runs win. There is no voting on the outcome.
I just checked, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.4 million. So one and a half million votes are blatantly ignored. That's like the voters of Utah and Ohio combined!
Quote from: _Xenu_ on November 19, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
The money needed to actually run in all fifty states would be much more than whats normal now,
About 126 million people voted. Hillary spent close to twice as much on her campaign as Trump. But she only got 1.3 million more votes. In other words, the amount Trump spent per vote is nowhere near as much as the amount Hillary spent per vote. Which would seem to suggest that if Trump needed to count on the popular vote in order to win he still would not have had to spend nearly as much as Hillary did. Which kind of takes the fight right out of the whole popular vote elections would cost too much argument.
Quote from: reasonist on November 19, 2016, 06:44:16 PM
The guy is wrong on many levels. He compares a baseball game to presidential elections? Regardless of hits, the most runs win. There is no voting on the outcome.
I just checked, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.4 million. So one and a half million votes are blatantly ignored. That's like the voters of Utah and Ohio combined!
I think both candidates would have run a much different race if the popular vote was the goal. In retrospect, it seems Trump's campaign ran a pretty clever game.
Quote from: Jack89 on November 19, 2016, 08:19:17 PM
I think both candidates would have run a much different race if the popular vote was the goal. In retrospect, it seems Trump's campaign ran a pretty clever game.
That he did. Or the electorate is that dense to buy into a fact free campaign.
My own feeling is that he won't last 4 years. The guy is uncontrollable. Give him enough rope and he will hang himself eventually. People his age don't change...
There's an easier solution.
To end the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. But you can eliminate the disparity between who many people per elector a much easier way.
The constitution says we can't have more than one rep per 30,000 population. Currently it averages about one rep per 700,000 population. It has been frozen at 435 for about a century. I don't think that ratio is what the authors intended. We could double the number of reps and still not get near the constitutional limit. Doing so would increase the number of electors by the same amount, and thereby flatten out the differences in number of voters per elector.
Actually we could increase the number of reps by a factor of 10 and not get near the constitutional limit, and further flatten the number of voters per elector.
As for full elimination and direct popular vote, I'm imagining the nightmare of a nationwide recount. Both Hillary and Trump got about 47%.
Recount as many times as necessary, until None Of The Above wins ;-)
Now there's an idea I could get behind - none of the above clearly got the most votes.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 20, 2016, 09:27:39 PM
Now there's an idea I could get behind - none of the above clearly got the most votes.
Time to change the topic ... squirrel!
How about how the French do things? Sarkozy is out, in his early primary. Will LePen win the general election? Will Merkel become the permanent Chancellor of Germany?
Quote from: _Xenu_ on November 19, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
People have been complaining about the electoral college since Al Gore in 2000, but getting rid of it would be a really bad idea. The problem with moving to the popular vote is corruption. The money needed to actually run in all fifty states would be much more than whats normal now, and would give corporations and lobbyists even more say in government than they already have. Getting rid of the electoral college makes sense at a glance, but would have serious unintended consequences.
So you are suggesting that fighting in 6 States is better for democracy than fighting in all 50?
That 1 vote in Wyoming should be equal to 1.3 in California?
The same money would be spread to 50 States, not just one.
Public financing would solve your concern. And limit non-campaign groups spending. Money is not the same thing as free speech. It can be allowed, with limits.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 10:42:16 PM
So you are suggesting that fighting in 6 States is better for democracy than fighting in all 50?
That 1 vote in Wyoming should be equal to 1.3 in California?
The same money would be spread to 50 States, not just one.
Public financing would solve your concern. And limit non-campaign groups spending. Money is not the same thing as free speech. It can be allowed, with limits.
Yes, lets change things so that Presidential candidates only need to campaign in the 10 largest metro areas.
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2016, 07:13:49 AM
Yes, lets change things so that Presidential candidates only need to campaign in the 10 largest metro areas.
It WOULD mean that a State with almost no one in it (like Wyoming) wouldn't matter as much as just New York City (about 12 times the number of people). But isn't that the point? That's where the people ARE. And we don't vote by acerage, but people.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 06:18:42 AM
It WOULD mean that a State with almost no one in it (like Wyoming) wouldn't matter as much as just New York City (about 12 times the number of people). But isn't that the point? That's where the people ARE. And we don't vote by acerage, but people.
The US isn't a democracy ... that it is, is propaganda, to keep people voting for their own enslavement. And I favor that. Democracy was a failure and still is.
Be that as it may, as I posted elsewhere, I would be happy if we got rid of popular election of the P and VP, and had the Senate choose them for us.
I have always thought of America as 50 countries. Was that wrong before? I don't think so.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 12, 2016, 05:38:45 AM
I have always thought of America as 50 countries. Was that wrong before? I don't think so.
That is why there is an Electoral College and a Senate ... and why the Senators are supposed to be chosen by the states, not by the voters in the states. But many of us are now Cultural Europeans if not Cultural Marxists ... the only purpose of units smaller than the whole nation, including cities, is to act as obedient extensions of the national executive ... provinces. This goes along with the monarchialization of the Presidency since 1960. Also our Native American tribes are semi-autonomous, hence the brouhaha over the northern pipeline. The US needs to break free of the EU and Nato as much as Britain does.
Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2016, 06:24:09 AM
That is why there is an Electoral College and a Senate ... and why the Senators are supposed to be chosen by the states, not by the voters in the states. But many of us are now Cultural Europeans if not Cultural Marxists ... the only purpose of units smaller than the whole nation, including cities, is to act as obedient extensions of the national executive ... provinces. This goes along with the monarchialization of the Presidency since 1960. Also our Native American tribes are semi-autonomous, hence the brouhaha over the northern pipeline. The US needs to break free of the EU and Nato as much as Britain does.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/969/932/818.gif)
May we be saved from the ambitious ... nationally, locally and particularly followers of Alexander, Caesar etc who want "one world". Why is tyranny more acceptable on a larger scale than on a small scale? Just as in the Cold War, I would accept, but be sad about ... the necessity to kill other nations, even if it was self immolation as well. Principles trump convenience, and sometimes even survival.
Americans love to blow things up ... that is something to keep in mind, and avoid.
We have the electoral college to prevent ONE state from deciding who will be president.
Without the EC, California would be the ONLY state to decide the election, for without CA, Trump would win the electoral college AND the popular vote.
(http://www.usacarry.com/forums/attachments/politics-and-news/16443d1482116641-its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-california-120z.jpg)
I knew there was a reason why I left California, twice!
The point about California is rather a fine point, not easy to explain at first glance.
There is an average percentage Hillary got in the states she won. She really deviated very little from state she won to state she won. There is an exception, outside the standard deviation, and that exception is California. She went far above in the percentage of votes from California.
Had California voted like every other Hillary state, she would have received fewer votes than she did. Had California voted like every other Hillary state, her popular vote count would be far lower, and Trump would have won the popular vote.
It is not that we shouldn't count California, it is to point out that California is actually one of the reasons we have an electoral college.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on December 19, 2016, 02:59:41 PM
We have the electoral college to prevent ONE state from deciding who will be president.
California has a population of 38.8 million, slightly more than 10% of the total US population. So yeah, it's to be expected that they'd be a pretty big tiebreaker.
Is that fact a problem? Are you arguing that elections shouldn't be decided by voters?
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on December 21, 2016, 08:16:17 PMIt is not that we shouldn't count California, it is to point out that California is actually one of the reasons we have an electoral college.
Considering that the electoral college was formulated in 1787, long before California ever existed, that's a pretty dubious statement.
But let's assume you got the state right and went with Virginia instead. Explain why the multitude of voters living in Virginia should be outvoted by the lesser number of voters in New Jersey and other smaller states. Explain why 20 million voters (or whatever the numbers were at the time) should be outvoted by 18 million voters.
For me, I would be happy to give California back to Mexico, then it is their problem ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 21, 2016, 08:55:12 PM
Considering that he electoral college was formulated in 1787, long before California ever existed, that's a pretty dubious statement.
But let's assume you got the state right and went with Virginia instead. Explain why the multitude of voters living in Virginia should be outvoted by the lesser number of voters in New Jersey and other smaller states. Explain why 20 million voters (or whatever the numbers were at the time) should be outvoted by 18 million voters.
Right, so just ignore the whole Constitution ... so old, so old ... and just go with direct democracy. Not a good idea. The states are separate countries, the people in California or Texas, don't belong to the same country as I belong to. They don't get to vote in my state, and I don't get to vote in theirs.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 21, 2016, 08:48:42 PM
California has a population of 38.8 million, slightly more than 10% of the total US population. So yeah, it's to be expected that they'd be a pretty big tiebreaker.
Is that fact a problem? Are you arguing that elections shouldn't be decided by voters?
Which isn't the point.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on December 21, 2016, 09:02:38 PM
Which isn't the point.
No, opposition to Federalism is the point, and preferring overweeing Washington DC tyranny. If they actually went full democracy, and only the 10 biggest metros mattered in politics ... then per the Cross of Gold speech, fly-over-country is going to cut off your food supply.
The Electoral College is a subverted anachronism. Originally, The States selected the President. And The Electoral College was intended to correct travesties of State choices. See Hamilton in Federalist Papers 68. Electors WERE free to vote as they chose.
That is no longer the case legally or in practice. Electors are now party politicians dedicated to their party and there are laws (possible illegal) restricting their choice.
States USED to be the primary identity of the population. That is not true today. It is time to go to direct elections.
Says you ;-) Time to break the US up into a more European arrangement, minus the EU and the Euro.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2016, 08:55:31 PM
For me, I would be happy to give California back to Mexico, then it is their problem ;-)
>mfw California and Texas (and New York to a smaller extent) economically, scientifically and culturally contribute far more than the other 47 and everyone wants to talk shit about them.
Take out California or Texas, and the entire United States falls apart. We "are" the United States, and it's a bit fucked up that we (and New York) have our voices silenced by rural states that cost the federal government far more than they put in. And yes, I realise Texas votes Republican (for now, but that is shifting)... but even then I still don't think it makes sense for someone who has to carry the rest of your sorry asses to not have a more powerful voice, even if we yell in the wrong direction.
Add just Texas and California's GDP together and it is the same size as Japan's. Throw New York in there and it is the same size as China's. You have to add the next 12 or-so states together to get that.
You made my point ... young Kruschev ... gotta kill all those Ukrainian Kulaks who won't give their agricultural production to the Soviet commission on killing Kulaks.
Hope you enjoy eating out of the 5 star restaurant trash bin ... because we won't be growing any products for you. Eat each other alive ... urban scum?
Texas is fly over country, if you eliminate the People's Republic of Austin ;-))
The California Weed Growers association, won't want to give up their weed cheep to the proletariat either.
Quote from: Baruch on December 22, 2016, 12:46:22 PM
You made my point ... young Kruschev ... gotta kill all those Ukrainian Kulaks who won't give their agricultural production to the Soviet commission on killing Kulaks.
Hope you enjoy eating out of the 5 star restaurant trash bin ... because we won't be growing any products for you. Eat each other alive ... urban scum?
Texas is fly over country, if you eliminate the People's Republic of Austin ;-))
The California Weed Growers association, won't want to give up their weed cheep to the proletariat either.
Yes, Texas and California will starve... except California and Texas are number 1 and 3 in food production respectively.
Didn't really prove anything, both states are just as agrarian as they are developed... which only proved my point that we have to carry yall's asses in every regard.
I see why the rest of the states hate us now... it has to be a bit embarrassing to have to always be looking up to us.
LA doesn't grow food. San Fran doesn't grow food, though they have wine to the North. San Diego doesn't grow food. Take away the population centers, and yes, California could join Fly Over Country. California is a big state, it has its own internal secession movements. N California doesn't like S California for some strange reason. S California has population and deserts, and steals all the water.
Quote from: Baruch on December 22, 2016, 01:11:57 PM
LA doesn't grow food. San Fran doesn't grow food, though they have wine to the North. San Diego doesn't grow food. Take away the population centers, and yes, California could joint the Fly Over Country.
Too bad they come with us.
Quote from: Baruch on December 22, 2016, 06:42:40 AM
Says you ;-) Time to break the US up into a more European arrangement, minus the EU and the Euro.
There are those who assert that the US is basically 8 different regions cobbled into one country.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on December 23, 2016, 07:49:00 PM
There are those who assert that the US is basically 8 different regions cobbled into one country.
I would say that is actually pretty accurate, if you break those 8 into subregions within a given cultural region. I am not sure our "American-ness" overrides our more regional tendencies.
Not all that uncommon, though; Germany has its Bavarians, Rhinelanders, Berliners, etc. who are all culturally very different, France is just a mess of different cultural regions with very little relation to each other, Spain of course has several regions that want independence, and Italy... don't even get me started on Italy.
The UK is imo a pretty good example of very noticeable regional differences. And that country is smaller than Oregon. (94,058 mi² < 98,466 mi²)
Ugh. End the electoral college but let's keep states and their rights. You think marijuana would be decriminalized or medical allowed with the feds in charge of everything? Holy crap, if anything, give the states MORE authority... like the Constitution says. But we should totally vote to amend that whole electoral college nonsense!
The Electoral College was created to prevent bad decisions by the States (who elected the President at the time) and give what were expected to be the wisest people as a group at the time the ability to over-rule State decisions.
Given that we don't think of our selves in terms of States like we used to, and given that the definition of voters has expanded in the direction of individuals rather than States, the Electoral College is no longer required.
US Presidential elections should reflect national voter choices.