Rethinking the Electoral College - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15140683
Goranhammer wrote:I'd beg to differ with that. If you asked the garden-variety Californian and Texan about their political positions, desires, aspirations, fears, etc. I'd argue that they'd be diametrically opposite. I'm no Texan (anymore) but I can honestly say that when I look at a typical Californian, it's with a look of disdain and angst.


The question is not so much what the political orientation of the average Texan is, but rather what Texans identify with. The US or Texas? I would argue Americans have a very strong national identity. Totally unlike Europeans for example, where people identify first and foremost with their own country and only little with the EU.
#15140685
Rugoz wrote:
The question is not so much what the political orientation of the average Texan is, but rather what Texans identify with. The US or Texas? I would argue Americans have a very strong national identity. Totally unlike Europeans for example, where people identify first and foremost with their own country and only little with the EU.


As a Texan transplant. My perception on this question is that more and more, Texans see themselves as Americans first, and Texans second. Historically though, it was the other way around. I think a large part of it has to do with the massive migration of people from other parts of the US into Texas. Like myself (a Native Floridian). In most states of the US, there isn't as heavy of a "state pride" culture like there is in Texas. However, even that is eroding in Texas.
#15140691
I think the EC does have a big pro: It provides a strong incentive for decentralization, in the sense that the POTUS will not be tempted to simply focus on large, urban states and simply neglect the rest as means to get the best electoral bang for the buck.

In practice though EC votes tend to align with the popular one.
#15140748
Unthinking Majority wrote:All it means is that the GOP will have to adjust its policies in order to attract more votes. The GOP and the Democrats don't push the same policies they did 40-50 years ago, because they'd shrivel and die and become irrelevant.

Let parties adapt to the wants of the electorate, instead of adapting the system itself just to please one party's ideology by pushing votes their way. That would be insane and totally undemocratic.


Isn't this a recipe for IRL idiocracy or some sort of majority induced dysfunctional dystopia? 'leave the country's policies to the whim of the increasingly lowering, lowest common denominator, what could possibly go wrong...'.

You need to draw a line somewhere.
#15140752
As pointed out in the Vox article and others, there are two problems with the electoral college system:

It's supposed to operate as a rubber stamp because it's supposed to follow the popular vote. But because electors are voters and are thus supposed to have free will, then it shouldn't operate as one.

And even if it does operate as a rubber stamp, it might not follow the popular vote. That is, a candidate might win over another in the popular vote for a state given only a small margin but he's awarded all of the electoral points for that state. That might lead to a situation where one wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, which is what happened in the past.
#15140754
Igor Antunov wrote:Isn't this a recipe for IRL idiocracy or some sort of majority induced dysfunctional dystopia? 'leave the country's policies to the whim of the increasingly lowering, lowest common denominator, what could possibly go wrong...'.

You need to draw a line somewhere.

Huh? Who draws a line? Who decides what this line should be? By what metrics? Leaving things up to the elites wouldn't be so bad if they weren't bought and paid for by the plutocrats.

The people are in charge of this country. If the GOP becomes less desirable to the people in the USA that's their problem, and they will need to adapt, by adjusting their policies to attract more voters or whatnot. I would say the exact same towards the Democrats. I don't like either of these parties.

Priority in any liberal democracy should be to democracy, not the fate of any party or ideology, no matter what you think. The GOP already doesn't want to give Senate seats to Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. while gerrymandering congressional districts. Over the last 30 years the GOP has had the most votes for POTUS only ONCE (2004). Obviously the GOP and their supporters don't want the status quo to change.
#15140766
Unthinking Majority wrote:All it means is that the GOP will have to adjust its policies in order to attract more votes. The GOP and the Democrats don't push the same policies they did 40-50 years ago, because they'd shrivel and die and become irrelevant.

Let parties adapt to the wants of the electorate, instead of adapting the system itself just to please one party's ideology by pushing votes their way. That would be insane and totally undemocratic.Unthinking Majority wrote:
All it means is that the GOP will have to adjust its policies in order to attract more votes. The GOP and the Democrats don't push the same policies they did 40-50 years ago, because they'd shrivel and die and become irrelevant.

Let parties adapt to the wants of the electorate, instead of adapting the system itself just to please one party's ideology by pushing votes their way. That would be insane and totally undemocratic.

Igor Antunov wrote:Isn't this a recipe for IRL idiocracy or some sort of majority induced dysfunctional dystopia? 'leave the country's policies to the whim of the increasingly lowering, lowest common denominator, what could possibly go wrong...'.

You need to draw a line somewhere.

The trouble with your thinking IMHO is ---
The US is already living in a IRL idiocracy or some sort of minority of plutocrats induced dysfunctional dystopia? It is characterized by the Neo-liberal theory's conclusion that all people are homo economans, who will willingly crush anyone who gets in the way of their pursuit of selfish aggrandisement without limit. And that in fact, this unlimited pursuit will automatically lead to the best of all possible outcomes. So, we see the 1% using their dollars to bribe Congress (both parties) to cut their taxes while millions don't have a job, because the market doesn't care if they have a job. Neo-liberals blame the victim and not the system.
. . . We have seen the victim blaming here in this thread.

IMHO, (this is obvious based on all my previous posts and threads), the EC is just one thing about American politics and laws that needs to be changed. The world needs to throw out Neo-liberal economic theory (it's just a theory) as useless because it is supported ONLY by logic and the assumptions that it assumes. It is logically useless because many of its assumptions are obviously false. It's also useless because almost all its predictions have NOT come to pass.
.
#15140792
Unthinking Majority wrote:Huh? Who draws a line? Who decides what this line should be? By what metrics? Leaving things up to the elites wouldn't be so bad if they weren't bought and paid for by the plutocrats.

The people are in charge of this country. If the GOP becomes less desirable to the people in the USA that's their problem, and they will need to adapt, by adjusting their policies to attract more voters or whatnot. I would say the exact same towards the Democrats. I don't like either of these parties.

Priority in any liberal democracy should be to democracy, not the fate of any party or ideology, no matter what you think. The GOP already doesn't want to give Senate seats to Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. while gerrymandering congressional districts. Over the last 30 years the GOP has had the most votes for POTUS only ONCE (2004). Obviously the GOP and their supporters don't want the status quo to change.


You mean the ultra rich finance sector industrialists are in charge of this country, i.e the oligarchs. The solution is simple. Execute them. Become a single party technocracy based on scientific principles. Only allow stem graduates the highest positions in government. But that won't happen, because the people aren't actually in control of your country.

You need a revolution bro.
#15140958
Igor Antunov wrote:You mean the ultra rich finance sector industrialists are in charge of this country, i.e the oligarchs. The solution is simple. Execute them..

You can't execute money.

All that is needed is transparency and accountable laws where money doesn't buy politicians.
#15140960
Oxymoron wrote:We need a less Democratic system as far as individuals go as this will move us toward a Tyranny by majority.
What we do need to do to bring civility, and good governance back to our society is lower the amount of people voting.
We need to raise the voting age to at least 25 for starters.


I don't agree. If you are 18 years old you re old enough to be recruited to go to war and die in a war, then you should have a right to vote for the president, congress and senate that conspired to send you there. Also in many states you are allowed to work full time be married and get divorced, pile on credit card debt, drive and also be tried as an adult for a crime..you should be able ho vote. Majority voting is good if the majority are well informed on government. Also know your polisci. Free clsses on civics, government, social studies, etc should be encouraged.
#15141035
Tainari88 wrote:I don't agree. If you are 18 years old you re old enough to be recruited to go to war and die in a war, then you should have a right to vote for the president, congress and senate that conspired to send you there. Also in many states you are allowed to work full time be married and get divorced, pile on credit card debt, drive and also be tried as an adult for a crime..you should be able ho vote. Majority voting is good if the majority are well informed on government. Also know your polisci. Free clsses on civics, government, social studies, etc should be encouraged.


The reason they have a cut off in age of 29 to join the marines because young men are dumb and easily molded. Not because they are responsible....
I think we should follow that same logic in reverse to get better voters.
#15141063
@Oxymoron

The Air Force has the highest allowable age. It's 39. :lol: I can still enlist if I wanted to. Though, I'm pretty sure they would rather me be a civilian contractor or something. At this point, my brain is probably a bigger asset to the government then any of my physical abilities (especially since I have a few minor medical problems that are not minor from a military standpoint).

I worked with this guy that was in the Air Force. He was stationed in Europe during the cold war. His job was to operate a mobile radar station (basically he was a part of an early warning system for a coming attack into Europe). Two things he told me that stuck out.

1 - He only ever fired a gun once in his entire career in the Air Force, and that was during boot camp. :lol:
2 - While manning the radar station, his orders were to leave their firearms unloaded. Further, if they hear gun battles in the distance, that they should run away towards base and not stay and fight. :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15141089
Rancid wrote:@Oxymoron

The Air Force has the highest allowable age. It's 39. :lol: I can still enlist if I wanted to. Though, I'm pretty sure they would rather me be a civilian contractor or something. At this point, my brain is probably a bigger asset to the government then any of my physical abilities (especially since I have a few minor medical problems that are not minor from a military standpoint).

I worked with this guy that was in the Air Force. He was stationed in Europe during the cold war. His job was to operate a mobile radar station (basically he was a part of an early warning system for a coming attack into Europe). Two things he told me that stuck out.

1 - He only ever fired a gun once in his entire career in the Air Force, and that was during boot camp. :lol:
2 - While manning the radar station, his orders were to leave their firearms unloaded. Further, if they hear gun battles in the distance, that they should run away towards base and not stay and fight. :lol: :lol: :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol:
#15141159
Rancid wrote:1 - He only ever fired a gun once in his entire career in the Air Force, and that was during boot camp.


I had to go shooting at least once a year until retirement.

Swiss military > US military confirmed. :up:

You are assuming that the deaths would remain at […]

You don't want the US to become Carbon neutral? […]

January 28, Wednesday President Davis writes Ma[…]

Two quotes to ponder: https://www.[…]