[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Hell Is ... - ScottN - Aug 13, 2020 - 11:42pm
 
Joe Biden - kcar - Aug 13, 2020 - 9:46pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Aug 13, 2020 - 9:21pm
 
Name My Band - kcar - Aug 13, 2020 - 9:01pm
 
Trump - R_P - Aug 13, 2020 - 8:51pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2020 - 7:29pm
 
COVID-19 - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2020 - 7:27pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - Prodigal_SOB - Aug 13, 2020 - 7:22pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Aug 13, 2020 - 5:02pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - gtufano - Aug 13, 2020 - 3:26pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Jonathon - Aug 13, 2020 - 2:07pm
 
Krautrock - Ohmsen - Aug 13, 2020 - 1:24pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Aug 13, 2020 - 1:09pm
 
Live Music - Ohmsen - Aug 13, 2020 - 12:55pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Ohmsen - Aug 13, 2020 - 12:39pm
 
HALF A WORLD - Proclivities - Aug 13, 2020 - 11:22am
 
2020 Elections - R_P - Aug 13, 2020 - 10:46am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 13, 2020 - 10:25am
 
Message To Lucky - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 13, 2020 - 10:24am
 
songs that ROCK! - Ohmsen - Aug 13, 2020 - 9:39am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Aug 13, 2020 - 9:23am
 
Poetry Forum - Ohmsen - Aug 13, 2020 - 8:59am
 
New Music - Ohmsen - Aug 13, 2020 - 8:56am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - sunybuny - Aug 13, 2020 - 6:07am
 
Shall We Dance? - oldviolin - Aug 12, 2020 - 7:39pm
 
Health Care - R_P - Aug 12, 2020 - 6:39pm
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Aug 12, 2020 - 6:31pm
 
True Confessions - Antigone - Aug 12, 2020 - 2:29pm
 
TV shows you watch - Ohmsen - Aug 12, 2020 - 2:18pm
 
There is another Jo - miamizsun - Aug 12, 2020 - 1:34pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - miamizsun - Aug 12, 2020 - 1:09pm
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - jarro - Aug 12, 2020 - 5:29am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Aug 12, 2020 - 5:27am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 11, 2020 - 8:30pm
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2020 - 4:23pm
 
Better Together - Steely_D - Aug 11, 2020 - 4:14pm
 
Jerry Garcia 10 years dead on Aug 9. - Ohmsen - Aug 11, 2020 - 12:13pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2020 - 10:36am
 
Climate Change - Ohmsen - Aug 11, 2020 - 9:57am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - Ohmsen - Aug 11, 2020 - 9:49am
 
What Did You See Today? - Coaxial - Aug 11, 2020 - 8:17am
 
Outstanding Covers - Coaxial - Aug 11, 2020 - 7:36am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2020 - 6:24am
 
Breaking News - haresfur - Aug 10, 2020 - 7:50pm
 
Hot Dog... it's Summer! - miamizsun - Aug 10, 2020 - 12:40pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - Ohmsen - Aug 10, 2020 - 12:20pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Aug 10, 2020 - 11:00am
 
Play the Blues - oldviolin - Aug 10, 2020 - 10:24am
 
Lebanon - Ohmsen - Aug 10, 2020 - 1:59am
 
Play RP My Favorites stream via HEOS services - morefigs - Aug 9, 2020 - 6:21pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2020 - 5:20pm
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - Antigone - Aug 9, 2020 - 2:40pm
 
Amazing animals! - R_P - Aug 9, 2020 - 12:11pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Aug 9, 2020 - 9:32am
 
Automotive Lust - islander - Aug 9, 2020 - 9:09am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Aug 9, 2020 - 8:06am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Aug 9, 2020 - 7:22am
 
Gardeners Corner - BlueHeronDruid - Aug 9, 2020 - 1:17am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - R_P - Aug 8, 2020 - 4:40pm
 
Our tolerance for opposing views - R_P - Aug 8, 2020 - 12:35pm
 
Amazon Products (May Contain Spam) - Red_Dragon - Aug 8, 2020 - 12:09pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Aug 8, 2020 - 11:00am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - triskele - Aug 8, 2020 - 10:59am
 
Two questions. That's it. I promise. - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:22pm
 
HELP! Sound Cutting out problem - michael16 - Aug 7, 2020 - 2:14pm
 
A little smooth jazz never hurt anyone - rhahl - Aug 7, 2020 - 1:51pm
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time - Proclivities - Aug 7, 2020 - 11:54am
 
What did you have for lunch? - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 8:55am
 
American Justice - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 8:40am
 
Music Videos - black321 - Aug 7, 2020 - 7:30am
 
New Song Submissions system - Hastur_T - Aug 7, 2020 - 7:12am
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:57am
 
Your favorite artist - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:44am
 
Reinstock '05 Link Repository - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:38am
 
China - R_P - Aug 6, 2020 - 9:01pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » The Electoral College Page: 1, 2  Next
Post to this Topic
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 6, 2020 - 10:36am

The Supreme Court decides not to make the Electoral College even worse

"Faithless electors" may be sanctioned for defying voters.

By Ian Millhiser
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Sep 17, 2019 - 10:50am



 Lazy8 wrote:
.......

Mandate inflation (where winning a squeaker of an election is seen as a ringing endorsement by the people rather than a reason to pause and moderate the agenda) is a separate problem in this country, one that we would have regardless of how we elect the executive branch. We see it at every level of government. Winner takes all, loser loses everything.
 

Yes, and not just in the USA.   Proportional representation would tend to alleviate that problem but the USA system would have to be radically overhauled in order to introduce proportional representation.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 17, 2019 - 7:34am

The astounding advantage the Electoral College gives to Republicans, in one chart
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 1:29pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
I hear it commonly regarding Clinton. But I think that's a different scenario. The general crowd of ultra conservatives I know don't see it that way though.  Oddly they do think Trump has a mandate 'because rules of the game'.  I also don't doubt there would be an equal outcry if Hillary had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, but those outcrying would be different.

Again, I think this is just a visible symptom of a larger problem with our elections and the overall representativeness / health of the system. Not sure what the tipping point is, but it feels like there are a large (near 50%) swath of people that won't be happy / respect the next election. I don't think there is any way that is good for our country.

Mandate inflation (where winning a squeaker of an election is seen as a ringing endorsement by the people rather than a reason to pause and moderate the agenda) is a separate problem in this country  society, one that we would have regardless of how we elect the executive branch. We see it at every level of government. Winner takes all, loser loses everything.
 
Small edit above.  I agree it is a different problem, but it is intertwined.

Also, maybe related: https://www.usatoday.com/story...

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 1:25pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
I hear it commonly regarding Clinton. But I think that's a different scenario. The general crowd of ultra conservatives I know don't see it that way though.  Oddly they do think Trump has a mandate 'because rules of the game'.  I also don't doubt there would be an equal outcry if Hillary had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, but those outcrying would be different.

Again, I think this is just a visible symptom of a larger problem with our elections and the overall representativeness / health of the system. Not sure what the tipping point is, but it feels like there are a large (near 50%) swath of people that won't be happy / respect the next election. I don't think there is any way that is good for our country.

Mandate inflation (where winning a squeaker of an election is seen as a ringing endorsement by the people rather than a reason to pause and moderate the agenda) is a separate problem in this country, one that we would have regardless of how we elect the executive branch. We see it at every level of government. Winner takes all, loser loses everything.
 
In Wyoming primaries, voters can select which party they want to belong to on the day of voting at the polling place. This year we had a crowded race for governor in the GOP primary, with 2 of the front runners being pretty right-wing or just plain nuts. Several thousand Democrats re-registered as GOP that day, and the more moderate candidate in the race won the primary by a margin of about that same amount. If either of the more hardcore candidates had just dropped out, it's clear that the other would have won the primary, and both of the losing candidates seem to agree that that would have been preferable to what actually happened. 

So now there's a movement afoot to prevent these last-minute changes. I get it; they think their party should be immune to outsiders doing what they do, but it also proves that they have zero interest in representing all of the people; or even all of their party. Only the ones who enthusiastically voted for them matter; everyone else can suck it. See also: 45

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 12:59pm

islander wrote:
I hear it commonly regarding Clinton. But I think that's a different scenario. The general crowd of ultra conservatives I know don't see it that way though.  Oddly they do think Trump has a mandate 'because rules of the game'.  I also don't doubt there would be an equal outcry if Hillary had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, but those outcrying would be different.

Again, I think this is just a visible symptom of a larger problem with our elections and the overall representativeness / health of the system. Not sure what the tipping point is, but it feels like there are a large (near 50%) swath of people that won't be happy / respect the next election. I don't think there is any way that is good for our country.

Mandate inflation (where winning a squeaker of an election is seen as a ringing endorsement by the people rather than a reason to pause and moderate the agenda) is a separate problem in this country, one that we would have regardless of how we elect the executive branch. We see it at every level of government. Winner takes all, loser loses everything.
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 12:02pm



 islander wrote:


 Proclivities wrote:

Yes, initially it was largely about keeping the heavily populated states from dominating elections.  Has there been a presidential election where the Democratic candidate won without winning a relative majority of the votes?  Some theorize JFK, but it's kind of sketchy.  I believe that in 1824, all four candidates were from the same party (Democratic-Republican Party).

 

I hear it commonly regarding Clinton. But I think that's a different scenario. The general crowd of ultra conservatives I know don't see it that way though...
 
Bill Clinton won both elections by a "relative majority" (the most votes or "plurality") of the popular vote, but not a "simple" majority (more than 50% of votes cast - almost in 1996).   The lack of 50% was due largely to our old buddy, Ross Perot.

RabbitEars

RabbitEars Avatar

Location: original states


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 12:00pm

The bigger issue is not the legitimacy of the election results as much it is that candidates strategize to win particular states rather than win the country at large, which makes the needs and desires of the few drive the entire political process for the many. The argument for the EC is that candidates would strategize to win cities and ignore small populations w/o it. That is a very legitimate argument to keep it. We need another solution, and that may be for a major revise of the EC rather than eliminating it. Of course this is also a problem with Congressional representation, especially in the Senate. For that reason, personally, I'd like to see (for example) Wyoming, Montana & Idaho made into one state, N&S Dakota made into one state, RI & CT perhaps as well... and DC and PR given representation (or maybe reducing small population states to having 1 Senator). But I know that's completely pie in the sky. 
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 11:43am



 Proclivities wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
No, it was a mechanism to keep big/populous states from dominating little/sparsely-populated states.

Electing the president by popular vote is pitched nowadays as a moral imperative that The People Must Have Their Way, but that's a thin tissue over the fact that it happens to disadvantage one political faction at the moment. If the shoe were on the other foot the Electoral College would be a Sacred and Inviolable Constitutional Protection Keeping Us From Tyranny.

There was no outcry about the unfairness of all this when Democrats were winning the presidency, even without a majority.
 
Yes, initially it was largely about keeping the heavily populated states from dominating elections.  Has there been a presidential election where the Democratic candidate won without winning a relative majority of the votes?  Some theorize JFK, but it's kind of sketchy.  I believe that in 1824, all four candidates were from the same party (Democratic-Republican Party).

 

I hear it commonly regarding Clinton. But I think that's a different scenario. The general crowd of ultra conservatives I know don't see it that way though.  Oddly they do think Trump has a mandate 'because rules of the game'.  I also don't doubt there would be an equal outcry if Hillary had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, but those outcrying would be different.

Again, I think this is just a visible symptom of a larger problem with our elections and the overall representativeness / health of the system. Not sure what the tipping point is, but it feels like there are a large (near 50%) swath of people that won't be happy / respect the next election. I don't think there is any way that is good for our country.
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 11:25am



 Lazy8 wrote:
No, it was a mechanism to keep big/populous states from dominating little/sparsely-populated states.

Electing the president by popular vote is pitched nowadays as a moral imperative that The People Must Have Their Way, but that's a thin tissue over the fact that it happens to disadvantage one political faction at the moment. If the shoe were on the other foot the Electoral College would be a Sacred and Inviolable Constitutional Protection Keeping Us From Tyranny.

There was no outcry about the unfairness of all this when Democrats were winning the presidency, even without a majority.
 
Yes, I agree; initially it was largely about keeping the heavily populated states from dominating elections.  Has there been a presidential election where the Democratic candidate won without winning a relative majority of the votes?  Some theorize JFK, but it's kind of sketchy.  I believe that in 1824, all four candidates were from the same party (Democratic-Republican Party).

RabbitEars

RabbitEars Avatar

Location: original states


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 11:13am



 Lazy8 wrote:

There was no outcry about the unfairness of all this when Democrats were winning the presidency, even without a majority.
 
That has not happened since 1824, and that was the only time it happened. Whereas we now have had two pretty bad presidents win the electoral (Bush arguably since Florida was never fairly counted) without winning the popular. And in both cases, they've proceeded as if they had a mandate without any regard for the majority of people who did not vote for them. 

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 11:13am



 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
That's sort of what the electoral college was in the first place right?  A way to keep the proles from getting out of hand and electing their own leader? So now it's just a question of who is it impeding?

No, it was a mechanism to keep big/populous states from dominating little/sparsely-populated states.

Electing the president by popular vote is pitched nowadays as a moral imperative that The People Must Have Their Way, but that's a thin tissue over the fact that it happens to disadvantage one political faction at the moment. If the shoe were on the other foot the Electoral College would be a Sacred and Inviolable Constitutional Protection Keeping Us From Tyranny.

There was no outcry about the unfairness of all this when Democrats were winning the presidency, even without a majority.
 
Yeah, that's what I said  . Seriously, you don't think that was set up to tilt the scales a little? Even if the premise were just to 'balance' the scales, it speaks to what the feared bias of the time was. 

Well, I'd say that to the republicans it is "a Sacred and Inviolable Constitutional Protection Keeping Us From Tyranny".  And they were the ones complaining when the Democrats were winning without a majority (in a 3 way race). 

I don't doubt the Democrats will change course when the dynamic shifts, but so will the Republicans (as I'm sure the whigs did too).   I do see a problem brewing when the majority of voters lose on a repeated basis.  Regardless of the basis for the system, that is a recipe for a large set of the population to lose faith, and that would be bad.

I see a larger problem with the general system we have of primaries and two (non elected) party apparatuses, and a couple of tiny / minimally representative states, completely controlling who the nominees are. I really think the original justifications for Iowa and New Hampshire's first vote systems are no longer supportable. We need a system where everyone has access and ability to vote, and can do it without impediment or undue influence. 

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 10:54am

islander wrote:
That's sort of what the electoral college was in the first place right?  A way to keep the proles from getting out of hand and electing their own leader? So now it's just a question of who is it impeding?

No, it was a mechanism to keep big/populous states from dominating little/sparsely-populated states.

Electing the president by popular vote is pitched nowadays as a moral imperative that The People Must Have Their Way, but that's a thin tissue over the fact that it happens to disadvantage one political faction at the moment. If the shoe were on the other foot the Electoral College would be a Sacred and Inviolable Constitutional Protection Keeping Us From Tyranny.

There was no outcry about the unfairness of all this when Democrats were winning the presidency, even without a majority.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 9:56am



 Lazy8 wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Lots of talk about doing away with the Electoral College lately. I remember someone (most likely Lazy8) laying out why it's there and why we need to keep it, but I wasn't able to find that discussion. So here we go. This came past my FB feed yesterday and I have some issues with it but the math/statistics is beyond my ability to dispute any of this...


I may have pointed out where it came from (the sovereignty of individual states in a federal system) but I don't defend it as Right&Proper—just the system we happen to have.

I'd hasten to point out to our overseas friends that parliamentary systems (which many of them are stuck with, and thus regard as Right&Proper) frequently result in heads of state with even less of a popular mandate than our system due to coalition governments.

If the states (remember them?) want to apportion their Electoral College votes according to the popular vote—or any other scheme—they are welcome to do so. Only Maine and Nebraska have schemes other than winner-takes-all and they aren't perfectly proportional, just allocated by congressional district for a finer-grained picture.

The scheme currently popular among sour grapes states is to create a compact among states to apportion their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. I predict this will last until the popular vote is won by someone other than a Democrat, and Democratic states (and all who have signed on so far voted Democratic in the last presidential election) end up having to cast their electoral votes for a candidate very unpopular within their own borders.

This scheme is a transparent attempt to produce a particular outcome.
Once it becomes an impediment to that result it will be abandoned in search of some other way to achieve that goal.
 

That's sort of what the electoral college was in the first place right?  A way to keep the proles from getting out of hand and electing their own leader? So now it's just a question of who is it impeding?
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 9:10am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Lots of talk about doing away with the Electoral College lately. I remember someone (most likely Lazy8) laying out why it's there and why we need to keep it, but I wasn't able to find that discussion. So here we go. This came past my FB feed yesterday and I have some issues with it but the math/statistics is beyond my ability to dispute any of this...


I may have pointed out where it came from (the sovereignty of individual states in a federal system) but I don't defend it as Right&Proper—just the system we happen to have.

I'd hasten to point out to our overseas friends that parliamentary systems (which many of them are stuck with, and thus regard as Right&Proper) frequently result in heads of state with even less of a popular mandate than our system due to coalition governments.

If the states (remember them?) want to apportion their Electoral College votes according to the popular vote—or any other scheme—they are welcome to do so. Only Maine and Nebraska have schemes other than winner-takes-all and they aren't perfectly proportional, just allocated by congressional district for a finer-grained picture.

The scheme currently popular among sour grapes states is to create a compact among states to apportion their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. I predict this will last until the popular vote is won by someone other than a Democrat, and Democratic states (and all who have signed on so far voted Democratic in the last presidential election) end up having to cast their electoral votes for a candidate very unpopular within their own borders.

This scheme is a transparent attempt to produce a particular outcome. Once it becomes an impediment to that result it will be abandoned in search of some other way to achieve that goal.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 8:38am

whats needed to abolish it?  2/3 congress, and 75% states approval?  that would need a major movement to push.  
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 8:33am



 black321 wrote:


 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Lots of talk about doing away with the Electoral College lately. I remember someone (most likely Lazy8) laying out why it's there and why we need to keep it, but I wasn't able to find that discussion. So here we go. This came past my FB feed yesterday and I have some issues with it but the math/statistics is beyond my ability to dispute any of this...

 

Isnt lazy from some small town state?  Seems there may be bias.  
 

He's actually from Montana, which is just below the threshold necessary to add a second US Representative ergo a 4th Elector, so his influence is quite a bit less than mine. And Ptooey's. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 8:25am

Abolish it. If ever there was a time for it to function in a beneficial way, it was in 2016. It failed to do so.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 8:19am

Keep the electoral college.  The rest of the rich democratic world has gone to proportional representation.   The USA must remain EXCEPTIONAL.   And paternalistic.  And continuously sell its own citizens short. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Lots of talk about doing away with the Electoral College lately. I remember someone (most likely Lazy8) laying out why it's there and why we need to keep it, but I wasn't able to find that discussion. 

....... 



ptooey

ptooey Avatar

Location: right behind you. no, over there.
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 20, 2019 - 8:18am



 black321 wrote:


 ptooey wrote:


 black321 wrote:
 

Isnt lazy from some small town state?  Seems there may be bias.  
 

Huh. I don't know why there would be any concern that the states with smaller populations might not get adequate representation.




 
watch the video

 

Give me a little credit.
Page: 1, 2  Next