The electoral college dilemma

[bamorin]

Nov 16, 2018 17:42:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 17:37:18 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Huh?....it just did, in 2016.
Trump lost the election by 3 million votes. That ain't even close.
...and if the trend continues, that gap could get even bigger.

and he lost california by 4 million votes......which means he won the popular vote by a million in the other 49 states. what's yer point?

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2018 20:04:02 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Nov 16, 2018 17:42:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

and he lost california by 4 million votes......which means he won the popular vote by a million in the other 49 states. what's yer point?

You can bet your bottom dollar that the dems are only against the EC when it does not benefit them. Say the hag lost the popular vote... but won the EC.... Would the board even be having this discussion? No, we would not.

[drjensen]

Nov 16, 2018 21:40:04 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Nov 16, 2018 20:04:02 GMT -5 bamorin said:

You can bet your bottom dollar that the dems are only against the EC when it does not benefit them. Say the hag lost the popular vote... but won the EC.... Would the board even be having this discussion? No, we would not.

Bingo!!!!

[daleko]

Nov 16, 2018 14:05:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

At least then my vote would have some meaning. As it stood in 2016, millions could have stayed home and not affected the outcome.

Because you have posted it, I can say like father, like son.  Not his fault, not your fault.

[AlaCowboy]

Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 16:46:41 GMT -5 drjensen said:

So it worked in 1790 and every election since, and it is still working today. RI was out numbered in population by Virginia tenfold and yet they both got the same number of Senate votes, 2, but Virginia did get more electoral votes because of the representation in the House. Democrats convieniently forget that and only bring up the EC when it doesn't work in their favor. The Founding Fathers were a group of individuals who formulated a successful system of government that has never been matched, equaled, or surpassed in the history of man. Yet, we have a bunch of bawl-asses who aren't getting their way and they want to change it. In our group we have an architect from California who has difficulty running a board chat room, a Uber driver from Ohio who can't find success in life, and a quack from Denver who gets his jollies off eating dingleberries, who along with like-minded snowflakes who don't like the outcome of an election, and we are just supposed to do away with a process that has worked successfully for over 200 years. Simply because some people didn't get their way. To the best of my knowledge, the EC was put in place for the election of the President of the United States, yet the initial author of this thread made this statement. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected.  The gentlemen that founded our country did not agree on every item or law in our Republic but they had the wisdom to come together and formulate a government that would not and could not be controlled a select group or area of people. That was their intent, and yet we continually are bombarded certain individuals who piss their panties if things do go their way. This is the same group of people who were awarded participation trophies when they were kids because guess what, they weren't winners then and they aren't winners now! And when they don't win they want to change the rules of the game so it is advantageous to them. Leave the system alone, start at the grass roots and elect candidates who have the best interest of America and her people at heart, not people who are nothing but career politicians promising you everything you want to hear then only doing what gets them elected next term. If you really want to see changes in the future, get on board with term limits for all of our Congressmen and women. See how much traction you can get with that!

So if we continue to have elections where the winner of the popular vote is not the person elected, hasn't the government given control to a bunch of small state constituencies, and wouldn't you call that a "select group or area of people"? You are undercutting your own argument. If the trend continues, small states will have even fewer people relative to big states, and their power will only grow. The disparity between big state and little state is such that it could then be considered a tyranny of small state systemic bias every time the EC overrules what could be a decisive win by popular vote by the people as a whole.

And, BTW...this is the rules board. No personal insults allowed. Next time, I'll dump your entire post.

Walter, your response is as leaky as a sieve. As a states population increases, so does their number of representatives, and thus their numbers in the Electoral College increases in proportion. For instance, Alabama is projected to lose either one or two representatives after the next census and the following reapportionment, and some other state will increase their number. The number of votes in the Electoral College is fixed, and as a states population increase, their power in the EC, and in Washington, increases as well.
The Electoral College system was chosen to fairly balance power between the total population and the states. This same idea was the reason for Congress to be split between the House and the Senate. The House is representative of the people, and elected at the local level. The Senate is representative of the states, which is why the state governments originally appointed Senators.

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 22:58:10 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 16, 2018 14:05:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

At least then my vote would have some meaning. As it stood in 2016, millions could have stayed home and not affected the outcome.

Because you have posted it, I can say like father, like son.  Not his fault, not your fault.

Yes, but the issue remains. Neither of our votes mattered.
Fundamentally, there is something wrong with that.
I think you hit on it.
The "winner take all" idea is a big problem.
It is an undemocratic idea if one cherishes the idea of a single vote having meaning.

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 22:58:54 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

So if we continue to have elections where the winner of the popular vote is not the person elected, hasn't the government given control to a bunch of small state constituencies, and wouldn't you call that a "select group or area of people"? You are undercutting your own argument. If the trend continues, small states will have even fewer people relative to big states, and their power will only grow. The disparity between big state and little state is such that it could then be considered a tyranny of small state systemic bias every time the EC overrules what could be a decisive win by popular vote by the people as a whole.

And, BTW...this is the rules board. No personal insults allowed. Next time, I'll dump your entire post.

Walter, your response is as leaky as a sieve. As a states population increases, so does their number of representatives, and thus their numbers in the Electoral College increases in proportion. For instance, Alabama is projected to lose either one or two representatives after the next census and the following reapportionment, and some other state will increase their number. The number of votes in the Electoral College is fixed, and as a states population increase, their power in the EC, and in Washington, increases as well.
The Electoral College system was chosen to fairly balance power between the total population and the states. This same idea was the reason for Congress to be split between the House and the Senate. The House is representative of the people, and elected at the local level. The Senate is representative of the states, which is why the state governments originally appointed Senators.

Ponder this then
As a states population diminishes to a point where they have only one represenative, the electoral power of the state increases.
How is that a good thing?
Let us take the concept to a ridiculous but logical extreme.
If everyone vacates 49 states, leaving just one voter in each state, then those 49 voters remaining will dictate every Potus. Does that make sense?
That is, conceptually what I am discussing.

[daleko]

Nov 16, 2018 23:19:29 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 22:58:10 GMT -5 daleko said:

Because you have posted it, I can say like father, like son.  Not his fault, not your fault.

Yes, but the issue remains. Neither of our votes mattered.
Fundamentally, there is something wrong with that.
I think you hit on it.
The "winner take all" idea is a big problem.
It is an undemocratic idea if one cherishes the idea of a single vote having meaning.

The other issue could be two dominate parties. The thing financial benefactors of the two parties fear most is traction of a third, imo. The thing that creators of the far 1/4 L & R fear most is traction of a third, imo.

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 23:35:43 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 16, 2018 23:19:29 GMT -5 Walter said:

Yes, but the issue remains. Neither of our votes mattered.
Fundamentally, there is something wrong with that.
I think you hit on it.
The "winner take all" idea is a big problem.
It is an undemocratic idea if one cherishes the idea of a single vote having meaning.

The other issue could be two dominate parties. The thing financial benefactors of the two parties fear most is traction of a third, imo. The thing that creators of the far 1/4 L & R fear most is traction of a third, imo.

I completely agree.
The obstacles of a third party are a structual impediment to a true democratic republic.
In that regard, parlimentary style democracies are closer to real representative governments for the simple reason that small constituencies have an easier time gaining a foothold in the governing process.
That creates some systemic instability but somewhere in between is the Goldilocks "just right" system.
IMO, American political parties are waning.
In CA, the Repubs are 3rd, behind Dems and independents. That, IMO, is the future of both parties.

[daleko]

Nov 16, 2018 23:56:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 23:35:43 GMT -5 daleko said:

The other issue could be two dominate parties. The thing financial benefactors of the two parties fear most is traction of a third, imo. The thing that creators of the far 1/4 L & R fear most is traction of a third, imo.

I completely agree.
The obstacles of a third party are a structual impediment to a true democratic republic.
In that regard, parlimentary style democracies are closer to real representative governments for the simple reason that small constituencies have an easier time gaining a foothold in the governing process.
That creates some systemic instability but somewhere in between is the Goldilocks "just right" system.
IMO, American political parties are waning.
In CA, the Repubs are 3rd, behind Dems and independents. That, IMO, is the future of both parties.

I've suggested it before and will again, now. When, not if, the middle gets together, people at both ends of the spectrum WILL get kicked to the curb. Both the far left and the far right may have overplayed their hands.

[drjensen]

In California, it is obvious the Dems are in the majority but that is not the case everywhere. Take Oklahoma for instance, I don't think a single county voted democrat in '16. Other areas of the country are the same. The power at the polls lies with the Independents, no one wants to acknowledge that but its the truth, however, the Independents have no organization in the running of our government and the problem we have in America is politics hinders the machinery of government.

[Walter]

Nov 17, 2018 0:17:04 GMT -5 drjensen said:

In California, it is obvious the Dems are in the majority but that is not the case everywhere. Take Oklahoma for instance, I don't think a single county voted democrat in '16. Other areas of the country are the same. The power at the polls lies with the Independents, no one wants to acknowledge that but its the truth, however, the Independents have no organization in the running of our government and the problem we have in America is politics hinders the machinery of government.

The trend here in CA is that, ultimately, Dems too will fall behind independents as well.

[Walter]

Nov 17, 2018 0:13:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 16, 2018 23:56:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

I completely agree.
The obstacles of a third party are a structual impediment to a true democratic republic.
In that regard, parlimentary style democracies are closer to real representative governments for the simple reason that small constituencies have an easier time gaining a foothold in the governing process.
That creates some systemic instability but somewhere in between is the Goldilocks "just right" system.
IMO, American political parties are waning.
In CA, the Repubs are 3rd, behind Dems and independents. That, IMO, is the future of both parties.

I've suggested it before and will again, now. When, not if, the middle gets together, people at both ends of the spectrum WILL get kicked to the curb. Both the far left and the far right may have overplayed their hands.

You are correct, but independents will not organize. They are independents for a reason. They do not want to be controlled top-down.
A statewide rule that forbids party affiliation on ballots, as is the rule for most local govs, might be an answer.

[lz2112]

Nov 17, 2018 0:58:42 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 17, 2018 0:13:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

I've suggested it before and will again, now. When, not if, the middle gets together, people at both ends of the spectrum WILL get kicked to the curb. Both the far left and the far right may have overplayed their hands.

You are correct, but independents will not organize. They are independents for a reason. They do not want to be controlled top-down.
A statewide rule that forbids party affiliation on ballots, as is the rule for most local govs, might be an answer.

I agree the two party system needs to change. But playing devils advocate, look at the Weimer Republic, which had dozens of partys. An upstart small minority party, that never achieved more than around 35% of a legitimate vote, ended up reducing Europe to ashes.

[daleko]

Nov 17, 2018 7:45:48 GMT -5 lz2112 said:

Nov 17, 2018 0:58:42 GMT -5 Walter said:

You are correct, but independents will not organize. They are independents for a reason. They do not want to be controlled top-down.
A statewide rule that forbids party affiliation on ballots, as is the rule for most local govs, might be an answer.

I agree the two party system needs to change. But playing devils advocate, look at the Weimer Republic, which had dozens of partys. An upstart small minority party, that never achieved more than around 35% of a legitimate vote, ended up reducing Europe to ashes.

Excellent point, which is why, today, it's all in the rules of the road. With no single party having a parliamentary majority by itself, in many countries, multiple political parties are compelled to form compromised coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocks and attaining legitimate mandate. All kinds of ways to govern. I seriously doubt a Constitutional re-do is in the cards, nor is it necessary. All of this shall pass, for the most part. But not everyone will be happy.