|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 26 2013 17:23 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 17:03 oneofthem wrote:
clearly anti-american to give all american equal voting power ^ completely unaware of how the president is elected.
ya that must be why
|
On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American.
If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly?
|
On January 26 2013 17:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 16:57 Souma wrote:
"anti-American" LOL. Is that term supposed to have some kind of mystical weight behind it? Christ, I hate that term so much. Ok then, it's anti-"everything involved with our structural foundation as set forth by the constitution and the method by which it was designed for us to elect a president". Happy now? Sorry, but I care about that kind of stuff. I don't like the idea of changing it.
Letting blacks vote is deeply anti-American too, but sometimes you really do have to say "God damn America" 
|
On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly?
Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another.
It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination.
While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties).
|
On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties).
What?
Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions?
Under the current system, a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president. So this point makes no sense. Now you want to argue that "elitist academics" deserve more of a say? This is new.
And why should the arguments of the founding fathers' matter. This is essentially an appeal to authority fallacy. If the argument is good, then it should be taken seriously. But the fact that it came from the founding fathers is irrelevant. These are people who live hundreds of years ago, it's not a divine decree.
|
On January 26 2013 18:44 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties). What? Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions? And a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president under the current system. So this point makes no sense.
Because discourse is currently held in one-line zingers?
And not necessarily. That's just how state governments have it set up right now. The federal government doesn't really have any guidelines that the states must follow when they allot their EV's. In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a fan of how elections occur right now. It makes a lot of sense.
|
On January 26 2013 18:48 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 18:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties). What? Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions? And a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president under the current system. So this point makes no sense. Because discourse is currently held in one-line zingers? And not necessarily. That's just how state governments have it set up right now. The federal government doesn't really have any guidelines that the states must follow when they allot their EV's. In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a fan of how elections occur right now. It makes a lot of sense.
No it doesn't make any sense. You're just making statements and not explaining them.
You say it leads to one liners. Why? What specific feature of the EC system, that does not exist in a popular vote system, prevents one liners?
And how does a PhD from the same state as a crack dealer get anymore say under the EC system? If the PhD doesn't get more say, then why did you bring up this example?
|
On January 26 2013 18:54 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 18:48 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 18:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted.
Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population.
Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes.
Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system.
This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties). What? Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions? And a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president under the current system. So this point makes no sense. Because discourse is currently held in one-line zingers? And not necessarily. That's just how state governments have it set up right now. The federal government doesn't really have any guidelines that the states must follow when they allot their EV's. In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a fan of how elections occur right now. It makes a lot of sense. No it doesn't make any sense. You're just making statements and not explaining them. You say it leads to one liners. Why? What specific feature of the EC system, that does not exist in a popular vote system, prevents one liners? And how does a PhD from the same state as a crack dealer get anymore say under the EC system? If the PhD doesn't get more say, then why did you bring up this example?
It only doesn't make sense because you're reading selectively. Everyone gets an equal vote under the popular vote system. They shouldn't.
edit: it's worth noting that I don't have a better way of doing it atm that I would prefer. I mean, there are, but I don't expect that to realistically happen. The next best thing is district splitting with objective redistricting.
btw, in case you didn't know, popular vote and EC are not mutually exclusive election systems. 48 states currently use popular vote within the EC system.
|
While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties).
These are rather radical ideas though, unlikely to find any real traction in the mainstream. It basically means abolishing fundamental principles of democracy.
|
On January 26 2013 19:36 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties).
These are rather radical ideas though, unlikely to find any real traction in the mainstream. It basically means abolishing fundamental principles of democracy.
The Senate and President were never intended to be selected by Democratic vote. Only the House was.
|
On January 26 2013 19:03 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 18:54 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:48 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 18:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties). What? Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions? And a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president under the current system. So this point makes no sense. Because discourse is currently held in one-line zingers? And not necessarily. That's just how state governments have it set up right now. The federal government doesn't really have any guidelines that the states must follow when they allot their EV's. In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a fan of how elections occur right now. It makes a lot of sense. No it doesn't make any sense. You're just making statements and not explaining them. You say it leads to one liners. Why? What specific feature of the EC system, that does not exist in a popular vote system, prevents one liners? And how does a PhD from the same state as a crack dealer get anymore say under the EC system? If the PhD doesn't get more say, then why did you bring up this example? It only doesn't make sense because you're reading selectively. Everyone gets an equal vote under the popular vote system. They shouldn't.
Why shouldn't they?
|
Mostly because even though our farmers read Plato, they are not part of the natural aristocracy.
|
On January 27 2013 02:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 19:03 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 18:54 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:48 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 18:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties). What? Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions? And a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president under the current system. So this point makes no sense. Because discourse is currently held in one-line zingers? And not necessarily. That's just how state governments have it set up right now. The federal government doesn't really have any guidelines that the states must follow when they allot their EV's. In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a fan of how elections occur right now. It makes a lot of sense. No it doesn't make any sense. You're just making statements and not explaining them. You say it leads to one liners. Why? What specific feature of the EC system, that does not exist in a popular vote system, prevents one liners? And how does a PhD from the same state as a crack dealer get anymore say under the EC system? If the PhD doesn't get more say, then why did you bring up this example? It only doesn't make sense because you're reading selectively. Everyone gets an equal vote under the popular vote system. They shouldn't. Why shouldn't they?
because then you have what we have, which is lowest common denominator "politics". (not that ec vs non-ec really changes any of this, and this point about "phds and crack dealers" has absolutely nothing to do with the question being discussed, which is just partisan politics masquerading as philosophy)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the ec as it stands is not a point along the democracy---republic axis. it's just a historical curiosity back in the days of states trying to balance against each other. states should just remain administrative districts, nothing more.
but yea, this pure democracy vs elitism of some sort argument has nothing to do with the ec as it stands. the kind of distortion the ec produces is more along the lines of voter turnout and issue suppression/framing, rather than anything related to a political elite vs the rabble.
|
On January 27 2013 02:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 02:05 kwizach wrote:On January 26 2013 19:03 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 18:54 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:48 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 18:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties). What? Why does "one person, one vote", lead to stupid decisions? And a PhD and a crack dealer gets the same say on who becomes president under the current system. So this point makes no sense. Because discourse is currently held in one-line zingers? And not necessarily. That's just how state governments have it set up right now. The federal government doesn't really have any guidelines that the states must follow when they allot their EV's. In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a fan of how elections occur right now. It makes a lot of sense. No it doesn't make any sense. You're just making statements and not explaining them. You say it leads to one liners. Why? What specific feature of the EC system, that does not exist in a popular vote system, prevents one liners? And how does a PhD from the same state as a crack dealer get anymore say under the EC system? If the PhD doesn't get more say, then why did you bring up this example? It only doesn't make sense because you're reading selectively. Everyone gets an equal vote under the popular vote system. They shouldn't. Why shouldn't they? because then you have what we have, which is lowest common denominator "politics". (not that ec vs non-ec really changes any of this, and this point about "phds and crack dealers" has absolutely nothing to do with the question being discussed, which is just partisan politics masquerading as philosophy)
There is nothing about the EC that inherently makes it less about "lowest common denominator "politics"", unless I'm mistaken about what you're saying.
|
Just to clarify a few things:
One-liner zingers seems to be independent of election systems really. 10 years ago some journalists said "if you cannot explain a point in less than 30 seconds, avoid the subject". Today the spindoctors say "if you cannot make a strong point in less than 10 seconds, drop the subject". It is more a question about how media and politicians interact than anything else! Lowest common denominator works because no media bothers educating people sufficiently on a subject before letting politicians spin it to oblivion!
As for the same value of each vote I really am disgusted by the way BluePanther is trying to argue against it with social indignation. The real arguments should be societal and geographic differences.
I actually think that there can be good reasons for letting some votes mean more than others, though the need is shrinking because the politicians to a lesser degree care about local subjects and rely on the party-line to tow them along. While I agree that splitting up ev into districts is a theoretically better solution than statewide voting, the existance of gerrymandering completely destroys that argument.
As for neutral line vs. objective. Objective can be extremely biased. It is all about how the criteria are formed and I promise you that if politicians start to select criteria, you will end up with an auto-gerrymandering system with little redeeming features selected by the majority! A neutral line is a lot more difficult to set and who are really neutral in USA?
|
On January 27 2013 02:19 oneofthem wrote:
the ec as it stands is not a point along the democracy---republic axis. it's just a historical curiosity back in the days of states trying to balance against each other. states should just remain administrative districts, nothing more.
but yea, this pure democracy vs elitism of some sort argument has nothing to do with the ec as it stands. the kind of distortion the ec produces is more along the lines of voter turnout and issue suppression/framing, rather than anything related to a political elite vs the rabble.
That's because 95% of citizens couldn't even follow the political conversations we have in this forum, much less contribute to them. The issues are framed in a way they can understand, and it often involves twisting of facts and perspectives to gain political support. It's far easier to just call Democrats "handout-givers" and Republicans "fat cats" than it is to discuss and teach the pros and cons of social welfare programs.
And I disagree that states should be "administrative districts." I understand that not everyone agrees with me, but that's a key part of my PERSONAL VIEW on the matter. States as it is are very powerful entities. And I'd like to see the federal government act moreso as a "confederation" than a "ruling nation". In other words, more like the EU, where it coordinates bigger projects and goals.
|
Canada11592 Posts
On January 26 2013 18:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 17:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American. If anyone other than an outside party draws it than it almost certainly will favor one side or another and how is a popular vote un-american exactly? Because objective methods can't "favor" one side or another. It's un-american because our whole government founded on republican ideals where states have a say in who is in our federal government. There seems to be some sort of obsession about "omg the people must be able to vote", yet when you read the writings and thoughts of those who wrote the constitution, they found that idea to be an abomination. While there aren't direct correlations, it's the same thing as a PhD having the same amount of say in who becomes president as a high school dropout who sells crack on the corner. I am not a fan of the "one person, one vote" because I think it leads to STUPID decisions, and stupid people being elected by a majority of uneducated individuals (in both parties).
I suppose you could go with Neville Shute's Seventh Vote method.
1 vote for everyone
1 vote if you have a higher education
1 vote if you worked 2 years overseas (soldiering counts)
1 vote if you raise 2 children to the age of 14 with no divorce (husband and wife both get it)
1 vote for being rich (above x personal income)
1 vote for church officials
1 vote for a special honour (knighthood, etc)
Adapt the criteria from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote.
|
On January 27 2013 02:44 radiatoren wrote:
Just to clarify a few things:
One-liner zingers seems to be independent of election systems really. 10 years ago some journalists said "if you cannot explain a point in less than 30 seconds, avoid the subject". Today the spindoctors say "if you cannot make a strong point in less than 10 seconds, drop the subject". It is more a question about how media and politicians interact than anything else! Lowest common denominator works because no media bothers educating people sufficiently on a subject before letting politicians spin it to oblivion!
As for the same value of each vote I really am disgusted by the way BluePanther is trying to argue against it with social indignation. The real arguments should be societal and geographic differences.
I actually think that there can be good reasons for letting some votes mean more than others, though the need is shrinking because the politicians to a lesser degree care about local subjects and rely on the party-line to tow them along. While I agree that splitting up ev into districts is a theoretically better solution than statewide voting, the existance of gerrymandering completely destroys that argument.
As for neutral line vs. objective. Objective can be extremely biased. It is all about how the criteria are formed and I promise you that if politicians start to select criteria, you will end up with an auto-gerrymandering system with little redeeming features selected by the majority! A neutral line is a lot more difficult to set and who are really neutral in USA?
Well, I don't think they are as easily distinguishable as you make it sound. The reason they say this is because they have to appeal to individuals who have political attention spans that LAST 30 seconds. They are simply tailoring their arguments to the population they are trying to convince. It's the same way a lawyer handling a rape case will make a slightly different argument to a jury full of women than he will to a jury full of men. The message and the method are tailored to the audience.
To the second point, I am against gerrymandering. I've said several times in the past few pages that I support adopting an objective methods of assigning districts. I'm sure some computer nerd could write a program that automatically assigns ideal districts (regardless of partisanship) that could be used everywhere. Such as a shortest-district-border method or something. A method that can be used going forward that can be regenerated every 10 years and would be party-blind.
FOR THE RECORD: I fully support universal suffrage and one person one vote in the House. I think it's important that you keep that populist voice in government. I just question whether its the best way to elect a President.
|
You didn't answer why everyone shouldn't get an equal vote (something that can be true both with the EC and without).
edit: my bad, you did earlier, and I completely disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
