|
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 27 2013 02:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +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.
beyond that, the ec does force the election to come down to a few swing states and well defined swing issues, while issues that affect say, heavy urban areas are not explored, nor is there much political return to bring these things into the mainstream, so the ec does castrate grassroot movements because their votes tend to be diluted.
merely changing the ec is not a cure though, a multiparty coalition kind of system seems like the easiest way to go for revitalizing politics. although, the gridlock etc will not get solved either.
|
On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote.
I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections.
I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it.
|
On January 27 2013 03:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 02:49 BluePanther wrote: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. beyond that, the ec does force the election to come down to a few swing states and well defined swing issues, while issues that affect say, heavy urban areas are not explored, nor is there much political return to bring these things into the mainstream, so the ec does castrate grassroot movements because their votes tend to be diluted. merely changing the ec is not a cure though, a multiparty coalition kind of system seems like the easiest way to go for revitalizing politics. although, the gridlock etc will not get solved either.
I like the way that "states" get the votes. I don't think changing that is a good thing. I think a change is needed in the WAY that states allot their votes (and not just blue states currently controlled by Republicans--all states).
|
On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it.
It is practically impossible to have president as a head of executive and not be associated with political parties. It is hard enough to have president somewhat neutral in system where president is just a figurehead with limited veto powers, it is downright impossible in US system.
As for the discussion about how to determine districts. I suspect that gerrymandering is unavoidable side-effect of having winner-takes-all system. And all attempts to create districts by neutral party will be hijacked in the end. Only moving to proportional system can you limit this manipulation and even there it plays some role (due to some proportional systems having recalculation process that depends on splitting area into districts).
|
On January 27 2013 05:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it. It is practically impossible to have president as a head of executive and not be associated with political parties. It is hard enough to have president somewhat neutral in system where president is just a figurehead with limited veto powers, it is downright impossible in US system. As for the discussion about how to determine districts. I suspect that gerrymandering is unavoidable side-effect of having winner-takes-all system. And all attempts to create districts by neutral party will be hijacked in the end. Only moving to proportional system can you limit this manipulation and even there it plays some role (due to some proportional systems having recalculation process that depends on splitting area into districts).
There are several methods of redistricting that exist which do not involve any human input at all.
|
On January 27 2013 05:26 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 05:12 mcc wrote:On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it. It is practically impossible to have president as a head of executive and not be associated with political parties. It is hard enough to have president somewhat neutral in system where president is just a figurehead with limited veto powers, it is downright impossible in US system. As for the discussion about how to determine districts. I suspect that gerrymandering is unavoidable side-effect of having winner-takes-all system. And all attempts to create districts by neutral party will be hijacked in the end. Only moving to proportional system can you limit this manipulation and even there it plays some role (due to some proportional systems having recalculation process that depends on splitting area into districts). There are several methods of redistricting that exist which do not involve any human input at all.
Of course there are, but they will be blocked before implementation or hijacked later as it is in the best interest of political elites to do that. And it is such technical issue that most of the electorate won't really care until it is too late and system is hijacked. What I meant is that, yes theoretically it is possible, but in practice it won't happen.
|
On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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.
I actually like it, but then there's the thing about "everyone is equal blah blah blah".
I would get 2 votes right now with the likelihood of 4 and possibility of 7, huehue.
|
On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it.
The thing about the current electoral college is that at its core it makes some states more important than others and forces the government as a whole to make very dumb decisions to capitulate to the whims of those states even if they arent in the best interest of the country as a whole.
|
On January 27 2013 02:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 02:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
yes, you're mistaken, we agree (at least about the lack of connection between elitist politics and the ec - we probably disagree in that your politics are probably much less elitist than mine!). I was responding to a question about why you wouldn't want everybody to have the same vote, which was used as a totally disingenuous point of support for EC.
edit:
On January 27 2013 05:39 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it. The thing about the current electoral college is that at its core it makes some states more important than others and forces the government as a whole to make very dumb decisions to capitulate to the whims of those states even if they arent in the best interest of the country as a whole.
if you get rid of it you just have the opposite problem. When you speak of "the country as a whole" this is a problem of misplaced concreteness - there is no such thing. Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered. It's a bit hasty to think of this as automatically "more fair" (even though I am of course more aligned with urban politics).
|
1019 Posts
On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it.
Sorry dude, the electoral college is completely idiotic. And how would you define a "smart" person? The electoral college is the reason why 90% of presidential campaigns are done in ohio while everyone else is ignored. A vote in north dakota is completely useless compared to a vote in ohio or virginia. It's a garbage system.
|
On January 27 2013 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 02:28 kwizach wrote:On January 27 2013 02:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yes, you're mistaken, we agree (at least about the lack of connection between elitist politics and the ec - we probably disagree in that your politics are probably much less elitist than mine!). I was responding to a question about why you wouldn't want everybody to have the same vote, which was used as a totally disingenuous point of support for EC. edit: Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 05:39 Adreme wrote:On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it. The thing about the current electoral college is that at its core it makes some states more important than others and forces the government as a whole to make very dumb decisions to capitulate to the whims of those states even if they arent in the best interest of the country as a whole. if you get rid of it you just have the opposite problem. When you speak of "the country as a whole" this is a problem of misplaced concreteness - there is no such thing. Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered. It's a bit hasty to think of this as automatically "more fair" (even though I am of course more aligned with urban politics).
Democrats always win urban areas and Republicans always win the non urban areas and if you think that either one is going to be ignored by a presidential candidate than I dont think you would ever be running a campaign. Its actually far easier to advertise in the non urban areas as well because of the cheaper ad markets and thats its not that hard to go from event to event (they do it in swing states all the time).
There are 3 practical changes I think this would cause. It would cause voter turnout to be much higher nationally because suddenly all 50 states matter so every vote matters, it would make it so the things that swing states need are no longer prioritized over things that the other 40 states need and lastly it would make the big states something more than just ATM's that the politicians go to to get money to then spend in the swing states.
|
On January 27 2013 05:58 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it. Sorry dude, the electoral college is completely idiotic. And how would you define a "smart" person? The electoral college is the reason why 90% of presidential campaigns are done in ohio while everyone else is ignored. A vote in north dakota is completely useless compared to a vote in ohio or virginia. It's a garbage system.
If all the votes do not automatically go to one candidate when they win the state, that makes votes in north dakota/texas/california more valuable. We have already covered that the current system is just a bad approximation of the popular vote, but done in a way that makes some states super valuable and others worthless.
|
Whenever you propose something as a solution to the problems you have with your system, you have to think about what the problems will be with that new solution (c.f. myxomatosis). This is why thinking about these things is hard, and it seems like a national popular vote would be a solution to the glaring problems with our current way of doing things. But might you be creating some new problems by doing so? I think so, although of course counterfactual-land is treacherous ground indeed 
edit: that is, when you talk about the national popular vote, your priority would be to think about problems with the national vote, not the problems with the EC which the national vote would obviously solve.
|
On January 27 2013 06:50 sam!zdat wrote:Whenever you propose something as a solution to the problems you have with your system, you have to think about what the problems will be with that new solution (c.f. myxomatosis). This is why thinking about these things is hard, and it seems like a national popular vote would be a solution to the glaring problems with our current way of doing things. But might you be creating some new problems by doing so? I think so, although of course counterfactual-land is treacherous ground indeed edit: that is, when you talk about the national popular vote, your priority would be to think about problems with the national vote, not the problems with the EC which the national vote would obviously solve.
Well, the issue is that all problems with national vote are at the same time problems of the current system, in the current system they are at best the same, but mostly worse. If we are talking about presidential elections. Of course in other types of elections there might be an issue of less populous states being somewhat more marginalized. If that is actual issue or not, who knows, for Americans probably is due to various circumstances.
|
On January 27 2013 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 02:28 kwizach wrote:On January 27 2013 02:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yes, you're mistaken, we agree (at least about the lack of connection between elitist politics and the ec - we probably disagree in that your politics are probably much less elitist than mine!). I was responding to a question about why you wouldn't want everybody to have the same vote, which was used as a totally disingenuous point of support for EC. edit: Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 05:39 Adreme wrote:On January 27 2013 03:05 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 03:01 Falling 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). 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 it from a 1950's British engineer's values and you have a weighted vote. I don't like that. At least those criteria. I like something closer to an electoral college, where you elect people you know on a local level to discuss and then go up the chain. In other words, you elect a smart person that you actually personally know to join a discussion at the next level, and go up the chain like that, maybe 10-15 steps or something. And have a two week break between each step, as they filter out candidates until they have a final vote at the end. Basically a series of caucus-like elections. I would also like to see candidates in the presidency somehow not be allowed to be affiliated with a particular political party. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to do that, but I'm sure it's doable if we sat down and thought about it. The thing about the current electoral college is that at its core it makes some states more important than others and forces the government as a whole to make very dumb decisions to capitulate to the whims of those states even if they arent in the best interest of the country as a whole. if you get rid of it you just have the opposite problem. When you speak of "the country as a whole" this is a problem of misplaced concreteness - there is no such thing. Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered. It's a bit hasty to think of this as automatically "more fair" (even though I am of course more aligned with urban politics).
On quick inspection, it would very much seem like getting rid of the EC would favor "urban" votes, but it does that already in a sense. These swing states that end up with the focus, it's the urban areas that help pick those states' winner. Do you think the plights of Columbus, Ohio and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are somehow ignored while the small farm towns decide the next president?
In reality, the EC emphasizes the states that aren't leaning in one direction already. It emphasizes sneaky political tactics to secure a state for decades. It emphasizes ignorance as political views are either heralded or vilified within state borders.
At one point, yes, the EC protected a very real difference in lifestyles, like the reliance on slaves (until the 1860s), or the proliferation of small farm families (until the 1930s). Now, it's just a relic of the past that inflates the current dysfunction.
|
On January 27 2013 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered.
If, in the absence of an EC-like system, urban areas dominated elections, then the Republican party would not control the governor's office in any states outside of the Great Plains, Idaho and Alaska.
and yet it does
|
On January 27 2013 07:58 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered. If, in the absence of an EC-like system, urban areas dominated elections, then the Republican party would not control any states outside of the Great Plains, Idaho and Alaska. and yet it does
ProTip: Not every single urban area is Democratic.
|
1019 Posts
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election.
|
On January 27 2013 08:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:58 Mindcrime wrote:On January 27 2013 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered. If, in the absence of an EC-like system, urban areas dominated elections, then the Republican party would not control any states outside of the Great Plains, Idaho and Alaska. and yet it does ProTip: Not every single urban area is Democratic.
Lolfest the largest city that voted republican was in utah. What urban area isn't democratic?
|
On January 27 2013 08:15 white_horse wrote:
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election.
Yes, but as anyone who's worked on a political campaign will tell you, they will essentially ignore any rural area and focus on only urban areas (you get more impact per effort).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
