|
Post by discoberry on Dec 2, 2011 17:17:53 GMT -5
Its at the end of this rather informative video. Short, but interesting.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Dec 2, 2011 21:46:33 GMT -5
It's not unprecedented for a candidate to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college. Al Gore's a case in point. I say we do away with it all together.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Dec 3, 2011 12:53:16 GMT -5
It's not unprecedented for a candidate to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college. Al Gore's a case in point. I say we do away with it all together. Well it happened 2 other times
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Dec 3, 2011 13:42:21 GMT -5
This was confusing
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Dec 3, 2011 15:09:19 GMT -5
I like the Alternative Vote thingy proposed in another of his videos. It has its problems, too, but it's something I've always wondered why we couldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Dec 3, 2011 20:06:32 GMT -5
What we need is straight ticket voting. Well, at least it would be a start.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 5, 2011 3:41:32 GMT -5
You can technically win the presidency with 0% of the popular vote.
In the United States, the people form the state governments and the state governments form the federal government. It's the states who elect the President, not the people. The video is correct when it says "This is not democracy." We're not a democracy: we're a federal republic.
I'm going to be very radical: the electoral votes should be allocated by the state legislatures.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 5, 2011 5:07:26 GMT -5
I'm going to be very radical: the electoral votes should be allocated by the state legislatures. I'm going to be very radical: The electoral votes should be allocated to the single person whose time of birth is closest to exactly 30 years before the last full moon.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 5, 2011 5:30:52 GMT -5
You can technically with the presidency with 0% of the popular vote. In the United States, the people form the state governments and the state governments form the federal government. It's the states who elect the President, not the people. The video is correct when it says "This is not democracy." We're not a democracy: we're a federal republic. I'm going to be very radical: the electoral votes should be allocated by the state legislatures. That's a shit system. Democracy is much better.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 5, 2011 7:49:45 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers abhorred the mob rule of democracy, and were wise in creating an intricate system of checks and balances whereby the will of the people could be mediated and tempered through a stable system of government, which would also preserve some of the sovereignty of the colonies as their status as independent countries before their admittance to the Union.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Dec 5, 2011 9:00:37 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers abhorred the mob rule of democracy, and were wise in creating an intricate system of checks and balances whereby the will of the people could be mediated and tempered through a stable system of government, which would also preserve some of the sovereignty of the colonies as their status as independent countries before their admittance to the Union. Yes, but their system wasn't perfect. This is why it wasn't perfect. Though I still think the electoral college has merit (says the person from New Hampshire who likes the attention).
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 5, 2011 9:15:09 GMT -5
The problems posed by the video are not necessarily with the Electoral College per se, but with the manner in which the Electoral Votes are allocated by the states. Each state can choose its own method for allocating its Electoral Votes. 48 of the 50, and the District of Columbia, use a winner-takes-all method, while Maine and Nebraska have a modified winner-takes-all method within the state and Congressional districts. These are not the only possible methods for allocating EVs.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 5, 2011 9:32:52 GMT -5
... This explains everything. No wonder radical conservatism is so popular in this country; votes from conservative states count more! (Texas is the only exception because it's so freakishly huge and thus, disadvantaged.)
Of course, despite the fact that this video made the case for doing away with the electoral college ironclad, it will probably never be abolished in the lifetimes of anyone on this board because American politicians never reform anything unless they are dragged into it kicking and screaming, and with the present state of voter apathy they are not going to be dragged anywhere. Even if they were, it took 80 years for women to get the vote after the women's movement began, and over 100 years for Jim Crow laws to be done away with after the abolition of slavery (a process which itself took 85 years from the start of the abolitionist movement) not to mention that people have been campaigning against the evils of trickle-down economics and unregulated capitalism for at least 30 years with no progress being made, and about 40 years and counting for gay people to be accepted in society, and a whole litany of other social problems which every other country in the free world has solved in less time. (Not coincidentally, none of those other countries have an electoral college.)
So don't hold your breath, guys.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 5, 2011 9:38:28 GMT -5
None of those other countries have the particular historical connection to federalism that we have either. The colonies, after winning their independence from Britain, were independent, sovereign countries. They voluntarily decided to form the union that is the United States, and voluntarily gave up much -- but not all -- of their sovereignty in doing so. The sovereignty of the federal government thus derives from the sovereign nature of the states.
To abolish the sovereignty of the states and their role in forming the federal government would be to change the nature and philosophy of our system of government, just as if you replaced it with a Westminister-style parliament or a monarchy. It isn't compatible with the history of our nation.
Also, your comparison to female suffrage and gay rights indicates you think that we somehow have a "right" to directly elect the President that is being denied to us. We don't.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 5, 2011 11:58:44 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers abhorred the mob rule of democracy, and were wise in creating an intricate system of checks and balances whereby the will of the people could be mediated and tempered through a stable system of government, which would also preserve some of the sovereignty of the colonies as their status as independent countries before their admittance to the Union. And they were mistaken in this case, the vast majority of elections have had the popular and electoral college vote for the same candidate and you would be hard pressed to say if popular vote was used instead of the electoral college the times where we would have had a different president would have ruined everything. It was a classist, unjustified fear of the common man not knowing what was good for him. Why would you use an appeal to authority? Fallacies are fallacious for a reason.
|
|