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

American Justice - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
Trump - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:41pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:33pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:21pm
 
Quotes: Your Favorite Comedians - cc_rider - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:11pm
 
Your favourite conspiracy theory? - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 11:34am
 
2020 Elections - westslope - Sep 23, 2020 - 11:31am
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - westslope - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:57am
 
Language - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:56am
 
The Obituary Page - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:56am
 
It's the economy stupid. - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:27am
 
how do you feel right now? - Steely_D - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:27am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 23, 2020 - 9:54am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pigtail - Sep 23, 2020 - 9:06am
 
WikiLeaks - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:58am
 
Favorite Quotes - Coaxial - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:39am
 
COVID-19 - black321 - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:29am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:20am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:18am
 
Race in America - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:06am
 
The American Dream - kcar - Sep 22, 2020 - 11:49pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - gtufano - Sep 22, 2020 - 11:28pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Sep 22, 2020 - 10:07pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Sep 22, 2020 - 9:59pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Sep 22, 2020 - 9:16pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:57pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:50pm
 
*** PUNS *** ASTRONOMY - oldviolin - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:43pm
 
Name My Band - Antigone - Sep 22, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 2:45pm
 
Brazil - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 1:57pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Sep 22, 2020 - 12:35pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 22, 2020 - 7:49am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:29pm
 
Things I'd LIKE to find at my house. - Antigone - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:31pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Steely_D - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
RP Main Mix on TuneIn unavailable? - DianaLipka - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Best Song Comments. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:37am
 
Trolls at RP - Steely_D - Sep 20, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
Facebook Tips - Ohmsen - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:34pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:16am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:15am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 7:29am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:46am
 
Republican Party - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:14am
 
FLAC Streaming - gsbaronnier - Sep 20, 2020 - 3:24am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 4:57pm
 
How's the weather? - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
China - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Thank you, Bug. - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:53am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Canada - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 7:37pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:59pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:21am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 9:14am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Drop the Puck! NHL Lockout Ends! - black321 - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Today in History - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:04pm
 
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news... - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:57pm
 
Soliciting ideas to bring about a more humane world - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:06pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:57am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:49am
 
Women in the World - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:02am
 
More Stuff Schlabby Doesn't Do - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:57am
 
Nina Simone... - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:42am
 
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