Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does "decentifies" mean? Similar to "covfefe"? Or did you mean "disincentivize"?
I was replying through my phone, it causes some errors sometimes. But yes, it meant disinccntivize. It's a deterant to minority parties in that state.
Quote:
So changing the system will change "ground zero" in campaigning from Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina to the LA and NYC suburbs. Big deal.
I am NOT in support of the popular vote. I am pushing for a proportional electoral vote. Rural voters are the real voters deterred from voting in Cali and New York.
Quote:
In a constitutional convention the small states won't play ball on this. Getting actual change is "whistling Dixie."
Then should we just accept it? I don't think so.
Quote:
The 1798 and 1802 elections were mid-term. Were they messy? And as far as "joining" the Federalists I don't know that there was formal joinder in those days. I don't know when or how that started but Washington's ideology was, like Hamilton's, definitely Federalist.
Washington was Federalist but not a Federalist in alignment, he was actually independent. It's like Theodore Roosevelt in a way, he was largely a Democrat in policy but was a Republican in alignment.
I meant the 1796 and 1800 elections but couldn't exactly double check it.
Yes, it is flawed. Even if one ignores the 2 misfires in the past 20 years (2000 and 2016), when the winner of the popular vote didn't win the electoral college, thus resulting in a "semi-legitimate" president, you have a bigger problem with it: the only states that matter to the candidates are the battleground states.
This is something both parties of voters could agree upon, in theory. If you're in California or Kansas - or other states like that, which always go one way - you really don't matter. Your votes are basically locked in for one side or the other, so who cares about what the voters in your state want, anyway? That's not really good, and tends to undermine the concept of ALL of the people mattering.
For it's time, the electoral college worked; counting up all the votes back before modern electronics and computers would have taken forever, and the level of voter fraud back then was staggering even when compared to all the conspiracy level nonsense about it today. But we really don't need it anymore, it can produce questionable results, and it marginalizes the voters in most of the nation.
If you read about the discussions the framers of the constitution had on this subject you will come away with an understanding of just why it is the way it is. It took them over a month to come up with the electoral college system (it wasn't called the electoral college) and there was a lot of heated debates over this. The first suggestion was a purely democratic vote, that was shot down because it allowed the largest population centers to dictate to the rest of the country on matters that effected the Union as a whole. Then they toyed around with the idea of having congress pick the POTUS, but this could lead to collusion within congress and again the Union would suffer, so, in short, the electoral system was adopted.
The framers didn't like the idea of political parties choosing the POTUS and seeing how the States created the Union, the selection of the president would be left up to the states and the voters in the states. Each state would have equal representation because each state had 2 senators, and the people would have representation based on their states number of representatives. This worked very, until political parties got their fingers into the system.
Prior to the 17 amendment the only federal office that was elected by democratic vote was the House of Representatives, this was done for a reason because they represent the People, and were expected to make sure the central government worked for the people. Senators were appointed by the States, because they represent the State, and were expected to do the job of running the Union. One has to remember, we are a limited democracy and a Representative Constitutional Republic.
Well said, Terryj.
Not to mention, given the class of "leaders" we have today, nothing they could possibly come up with would compare in any way favorably with the founders' solution. They broke the mold with The Founders. And even among them there was huge dissent and grouchiness.
I am NOT in support of the popular vote. I am pushing for a proportional electoral vote. Rural voters are the real voters deterred from voting in Cali and New York.
Proportional voting is a hot mess in Italy, Israel and countless other places. It sounds great but spawns a multiplicity of parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Then should we just accept it? I don't think so.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. And changing the rules should be done sparingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Washington was Federalist but not a Federalist in alignment, he was actually independent. It's like Theodore Roosevelt in a way, he was largely a Democrat in policy but was a Republican in alignment.
Ditto Abe Lincoln and in the opposite direction Woodrow Wilson.
Proportional voting is a hot mess in Italy, Israel and countless other places.
The problem is keeping it as is keeps minority party voters in a state out of the vote because it is a rugged system. Plus it focuses political capital on on battleground states. Arizona had maybe one rally for each candidate in October, the battlegrounds saw daily rallies until election day. A popular vote bases it on cities and suburbia too much. A congressional district based one like Maine and Nebraska have is subject to gerrymandering as is a parliamentary system. Proportional elector votes based on the state's popular vote is the best option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
It sounds great but spawns a multiplicity of parties.
The U.S. needs that though. The current system leads to two party rule. The only time we saw one was with Quincy Adams and Jackson but due to Jackson's presidency the disenfranchised northern Democratic-Republicans created the Whig Party in light of the spoils system that they blamed Jackson on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. And changing the rules should be done sparingly.
The big issue I see with the current system is it is far from perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Ditto Abe Lincoln and in the opposite direction Woodrow Wilson.
Ironically about Washington didn't align with a party and didn't want them. The main thing I notice was that besides economically, the Republicans and Democrats flipped with Nixon.
The U.S. needs that though. The current system leads to two party rule. The only time we saw one was with Quincy Adams and Jackson but due to Jackson's presidency the disenfranchised northern Democratic-Republicans created the Whig Party in light of the spoils system that they blamed Jackson on.
The problem with a multiplicity of parties is it breeds coalitions. The Prime Minister then proceeds to blame his or her coalition partners when paralysis occurs. Better to have accountable leaders and parties.
The problem with a multiplicity of parties is it breeds coalitions. The Prime Minister then proceeds to blame his or her coalition partners when paralysis occurs. Better to have accountable leaders and parties.
That assumes that she gains popularity by exposure. I'm not so sure given how odious her appearance seems to be. And yes I voted for her. But frankly she's many people's idea of a nasty mother-in-law.
LOL, very true. I don't know for certain that Hillary would've won, but regardless how we calculate votes, it makes sense why she lost. If you don't campaign in states you figure are a sure thing, you might just be mistaken.
Of course, the huge caveat to this is that Hillary managed to raise over a billion dollars. If you can't become President with that amount of money, there's really no helping you. It just wasn't in the cards.
The main thing I notice was that besides economically, the Republicans and Democrats flipped with Nixon.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Nixon was an outlier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A popular vote bases it on cities and suburbia too much. A congressional district based one like Maine and Nebraska have is subject to gerrymandering as is a parliamentary system. Proportional elector votes based on the state's popular vote is the best option.
