Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frazzled wrote: Most didn't vote for HRC. No candidate won a majority of the vote.
Unless I am very much mistaken, HRC did get a plurality, which is as good as a majority in a FPTP system. Now if I was able to get rid of the the EC (which I've benn banging on for years now) ,I'd also get an IRV system in place to allow viable third parties.
Because the most populous cities were in her favor.
Most of the states were against her. How is it fair when all what a candidate has to do is ingratiate themselves with only certain areas of the country, which tend to lean towards that candidate's party anyway?
"How is it fair that someone who gets tye most votes in a democracy wins!"
We are a republic. We are not a democracy. Democracy doesn't exist.
We are a democratic republic.* We aren't a direct democracy, but still a democracy.
*Or to be really specific, a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Co'tor Shas wrote: We are a democratic republic.* We aren't a direct democracy, but still a democracy.
*Or to be really specific, a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
The difference between a Democratic Republic and a straight-up Democracy is that the Democratic Republic knew how annoying and impractical it would be to have everyone voting on every issue all the time, so they decided to have a profession of decision makers who would be the ones actually voting on those decisions. They wanted to make sure the government represented the people though, so they have the public in general vote for those representatives.
The difference between the two doesn't include any situation where a vote is actually happening in a Democratic Republic and it's justifiable to let the side that got more votes than anyone else in that vote actually be the side that lost the vote.
The Electoral College doesn't mean that the USA violates this rule either. It just means that the vote actually determining who becomes President is among the <500 individuals in the Electoral College, and the Popular Vote consisting of tens of millions of individuals is so irrelevant to the outcome there's no point figuring out what that number is, no point mentioning it ever, and no point even calling it a vote.
That still isn't the question. It's why do people's votes matter less. Nothing about state representation was mentioned. You need to wtop thinking in terms of states. a federal, non representative office should represnt the people, not the states. The states have representation via the senate and house (although the house also does local issues).
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.
Why? Why should governments and politicians matter more than the will of the people?
Why what?
The people controls the means as to how the electors are chosen and divvied up in there own state.
You are acting like the State "construct" we have shouldn't matter...
.Also, some refrance for those areas? A map with no context is not a good system.
Oops... sorry. The blue areas are the densely populated areas and it's the blue area vs. grey area are 50% of the population.
So your argument is the representation should be equal to the amount of land you own?
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 15:47:27
whembly wrote: I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.
So you're saying your President doesn't represent the people, he represents the States?
The States *are* the collective people of the U.S.
Or, let me put it to you in this fashion, pick one:
Are state governments are independent sovereigns?
Or are they simply provincial subdivisions of a homogeneous federal government?
Why would that even matter?
The thing you're failing to do is justify the need for the EC. If only 5 elections would have changed by not going with a purely populous vote, then why keep it. 90% of the elections would have resulted in the same outcome. are you saying that all those previous elections were really just the result of the tyranny of the majority?
So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?
People keep saying stuff like this in defence of the electorate system, but what does it even mean?
First of all, the answer is obviously the same as for why any presidential candidate in any other election in the world focus somewhat on even the sparse parts of the country they're running in. Because there's votes there too. There seem to be some weird notion that sparsley populated regions should get disproportional influence just because they cover a lot of geographical area. But if that really were the goal, why does the electors get distributed according to population. Why not give Alaska 30 elector due to it's massive size?
And what does it mean that politicians focus on certain regions? In the days where transportation were horse and buggy and newspapers took weeks to be reach remote locations, it might make sense to split up the country when voting for president. These days the election is not 50 separate elections in 50 separate states. It's one nationwide election.* Every tweet from the candidates and every news broadcast is equally accesable to anyone in the nation.
*Sure, nominally the presidential election might not be a direct national election. But it still is in everything but name.
Why would it be a problem if more resources were spent campaigning in areas where the candidates reach more people (I'm pretty sure this is already the case anyway, for obvious reasons)? And if yes, how is it any less of a problem if those same resources are instead spent campaigning in swing-states, reaching less people?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 15:52:07
Oh. Hahaha. I could see that. Less a satirical proposal and more a recognition or who is voting for who.
It's always sad to think in the terms of people dying and how it effects x,y or z. Social security problems? Just wait until the population curve comes back around and it becomes flush again. Of course that's the nice way of saying "wait untila bunch of people die".
The worst part of politics is how it dehumanized people and turns them into demographics.
Ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
whembly wrote: I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.
So you're saying your President doesn't represent the people, he represents the States?
The States *are* the collective people of the U.S.
Or, let me put it to you in this fashion, pick one:
Are state governments are independent sovereigns?
Or are they simply provincial subdivisions of a homogeneous federal government?
No... not really. Because the Electoral College means that the votes for the President of the collective people of the US only matter for determining whether their state goes into the Electoral College as Democrat or Republican, not for actually determining who becomes President.
Co'tor Shas wrote: We are a democratic republic.* We aren't a direct democracy, but still a democracy.
*Or to be really specific, a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
The difference between a Democratic Republic and a straight-up Democracy is that the Democratic Republic knew how annoying and impractical it would be to have everyone voting on every issue all the time, so they decided to have a profession of decision makers who would be the ones actually voting on those decisions. They wanted to make sure the government represented the people though, so they have the public in general vote for those representatives.
The difference between the two doesn't include any situation where a vote is actually happening in a Democratic Republic and it's justifiable to let the side that got more votes than anyone else in that vote actually be the side that lost the vote.
The Electoral College doesn't mean that the USA violates this rule either. It just means that the vote actually determining who becomes President is among the <500 individuals in the Electoral College, and the Popular Vote consisting of tens of millions of individuals is so irrelevant to the outcome there's no point figuring out what that number is, no point mentioning it ever, and no point even calling it a vote.
You do know that these electors are submitted by each of their respective Presidential Campaigns... right? (well... most of them are. I think a couple of states, the state legislatures nominates them).
So, these people aren't some "joe-schmoe off the street". These people are from the actual political apparatchik members.
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 15:53:36
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
whembly wrote: No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
So you're saying, what, that the President and ONLY the President, since the election of the President is the only REASON the Electoral College EXISTS, is going to start acting any differently because the reason they're in office is because the vote for doing so was based on the number of people that voted for him/her instead of the number of states that voted for him/her, even though 9 times out of 10 there wouldn't be any difference in who was President either way you did it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 15:56:41
So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?
People keep saying stuff like this in defence of the electorate system, but what does it even mean?
First of all, the answer is obviously the same as for why any presidential candidate in any other election in the world focus somewhat on even the sparse parts of the country they're running in. Because there's votes there too. There seem to be some weird notion that sparsley populated regions should get disproportional influence just because they cover a lot of geographical area. But if that really were the goal, why does the electors get distributed according to population. Why not give Alaska 30 elector due to it's massive size?
And what does it mean that politicians focus on certain regions? In the days where transportation were horse and buggy and newspapers took weeks to be reach remote locations, it might make sense to split up the country when voting for president. These days the election is not 50 separate elections in 50 separate states. It's one nationwide election.* Every tweet from the candidates and every news broadcast is equally accesable to anyone in the nation.
*Sure, nominally the presidential election might not be a direct national election. But it still is in everything but name.
Why would it be a problem if more resources were spent campaigning in areas where the candidates reach more people (I'm pretty sure this is already the case anyway, for obvious reasons)? And if yes, how is it any less of a problem if those same resources are instead spent campaigning in swing-states, reaching less people?
I'm going to keep on banging this drum.
The President is a federal office for the United States of America.
Let me repeat myself:
United. States. of America.
It's not:
United. STATE. of America (see the singular form of 'state'???)
So, the system was designed to be a compromise at it's genesis, with some tweaks along the way.
It's working as designed and the rules is understood.
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I don't think Republic means what you think it means.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
So you're saying, what, that the President and ONLY the President, since the election of the President is the only REASON the Electoral College EXISTS, is going to start acting any differently because the reason they're in office is because the vote for doing so was based on the number of people that voted for him/her instead of the number of states that voted for him/her, even though 9 times out of 10 there wouldn't be any difference in who was President either way you did it?
Co'tor Shas wrote: We are a democratic republic.* We aren't a direct democracy, but still a democracy.
*Or to be really specific, a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
The difference between a Democratic Republic and a straight-up Democracy is that the Democratic Republic knew how annoying and impractical it would be to have everyone voting on every issue all the time, so they decided to have a profession of decision makers who would be the ones actually voting on those decisions. They wanted to make sure the government represented the people though, so they have the public in general vote for those representatives.
The difference between the two doesn't include any situation where a vote is actually happening in a Democratic Republic and it's justifiable to let the side that got more votes than anyone else in that vote actually be the side that lost the vote.
The Electoral College doesn't mean that the USA violates this rule either. It just means that the vote actually determining who becomes President is among the <500 individuals in the Electoral College, and the Popular Vote consisting of tens of millions of individuals is so irrelevant to the outcome there's no point figuring out what that number is, no point mentioning it ever, and no point even calling it a vote.
You do know that these electors are submitted by each of their respective Presidential Campaigns... right? (well... most of them are. I think a couple of states, the state legislatures nominates them).
So, these people aren't some "joe-schmoe off the street". These people are from the actual political apparatchik members.
And 999/1000 times you could replace the people in the Electoral College with a Points system and the difference to the number of votes/points each side got would be nothing.
Their job, 999 times out of 1000, is entirely ceremonial. And that remaining 1 in 1000 is when one person votes differently from how their state voted.
So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?
People keep saying stuff like this in defence of the electorate system, but what does it even mean?
First of all, the answer is obviously the same as for why any presidential candidate in any other election in the world focus somewhat on even the sparse parts of the country they're running in. Because there's votes there too. There seem to be some weird notion that sparsley populated regions should get disproportional influence just because they cover a lot of geographical area. But if that really were the goal, why does the electors get distributed according to population. Why not give Alaska 30 elector due to it's massive size?
And what does it mean that politicians focus on certain regions? In the days where transportation were horse and buggy and newspapers took weeks to be reach remote locations, it might make sense to split up the country when voting for president. These days the election is not 50 separate elections in 50 separate states. It's one nationwide election.* Every tweet from the candidates and every news broadcast is equally accesable to anyone in the nation.
*Sure, nominally the presidential election might not be a direct national election. But it still is in everything but name.
Why would it be a problem if more resources were spent campaigning in areas where the candidates reach more people (I'm pretty sure this is already the case anyway, for obvious reasons)? And if yes, how is it any less of a problem if those same resources are instead spent campaigning in swing-states, reaching less people?
I'm going to keep on banging this drum.
The President is a federal office for the United States of America.
Let me repeat myself:
United. States. of America.
It's not:
United. STATE. of America (see the singular form of 'state'???)
So, the system was designed to be a compromise at it's genesis, with some tweaks along the way.
It's working as designed and the rules is understood.
Sure, sure. I'm not arguing against any of that.
I just have not seen anyone make any argument for why the electorate system is in any way preferable to a straight public vote, or as a compromise - a system of proportional distribution of electors in the states.
Obviously the creators of the electorate system wanted it to be the way it is. But why the hell would anyone want it to be that way today?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 16:05:01
whembly wrote: No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
So you're saying, what, that the President and ONLY the President, since the election of the President is the only REASON the Electoral College EXISTS, is going to start acting any differently because the reason they're in office is because the vote for doing so was based on the number of people that voted for him/her instead of the number of states that voted for him/her, even though 9 times out of 10 there wouldn't be any difference in who was President either way you did it?
I'm not sure I understand your question...
I'm not surprised. Your concern is effectively that if you elected the President based on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College, your state would get screwed over. But 9 times out of 10, the same candidate would've won anyways, because you've had only about 45 Presidents in your country's lifespan and only 4 times has the popular vote not been congruent with the person actually elected by the Electoral College.
If the same person is getting elected 9 times out of 10 no matter whether you base it on the Electoral College or the Popular Vote, why would they be motivated to conduct their Presidency any differently because of the actual vote their election was a cause of?
So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?
People keep saying stuff like this in defence of the electorate system, but what does it even mean?
First of all, the answer is obviously the same as for why any presidential candidate in any other election in the world focus somewhat on even the sparse parts of the country they're running in. Because there's votes there too. There seem to be some weird notion that sparsley populated regions should get disproportional influence just because they cover a lot of geographical area. But if that really were the goal, why does the electors get distributed according to population. Why not give Alaska 30 elector due to it's massive size?
And what does it mean that politicians focus on certain regions? In the days where transportation were horse and buggy and newspapers took weeks to be reach remote locations, it might make sense to split up the country when voting for president. These days the election is not 50 separate elections in 50 separate states. It's one nationwide election.* Every tweet from the candidates and every news broadcast is equally accesable to anyone in the nation.
*Sure, nominally the presidential election might not be a direct national election. But it still is in everything but name.
Why would it be a problem if more resources were spent campaigning in areas where the candidates reach more people (I'm pretty sure this is already the case anyway, for obvious reasons)? And if yes, how is it any less of a problem if those same resources are instead spent campaigning in swing-states, reaching less people?
I'm going to keep on banging this drum.
The President is a federal office for the United States of America.
Let me repeat myself:
United. States. of America.
It's not:
United. STATE. of America (see the singular form of 'state'???)
So, the system was designed to be a compromise at it's genesis, with some tweaks along the way.
It's working as designed and the rules is understood.
Sure, sure. I'm not arguing against any of that.
I just have not seen anyone make any argument for why the electorate system is in any way preferable to a straight public vote, or as a compromise - a system of proportional distribution of electors in the states.
As a practical matter, it would be really REALLY difficult to amend the constitution to change/remove the EC system.
However, each state's legislatures are empowered to chaing the distribution of the electors based on the state outcoume. Nebraska and Maine have done this already.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 16:11:46
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I don't think Republic means what you think it means.
No, he's technically right. Nowadays a republic can refer to any system of government that doesn't use a monarch, even if that system of government isn't really a republic in the proper sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 16:06:59
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
whembly wrote: No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
So you're saying, what, that the President and ONLY the President, since the election of the President is the only REASON the Electoral College EXISTS, is going to start acting any differently because the reason they're in office is because the vote for doing so was based on the number of people that voted for him/her instead of the number of states that voted for him/her, even though 9 times out of 10 there wouldn't be any difference in who was President either way you did it?
I'm not sure I understand your question...
I'm not surprised.
Hey now... don't make me send up Frazzled and his legion of weiner dawgs to confiscate all of your maple syrup and canadian bacon!
Your concern is effectively that if you elected the President based on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College, your state would get screwed over. But 9 times out of 10, the same candidate would've won anyways, because you've had only about 45 Presidents in your country's lifespan and only 4 times has the popular vote not been congruent with the person actually elected by the Electoral College.
If the same person is getting elected 9 times out of 10 no matter whether you base it on the Electoral College or the Popular Vote, why would they be motivated to conduct their Presidency any differently because of the actual vote their election was a cause of?
Yes. That's exactly my concern. Switching to Popular vote system would guarantee a shift on who would run and how the campaign would be conducted.
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I don't think Republic means what you think it means.
No, he's technically right. Nowadays a republic can refer to any system of government that doesn't use a monarch, even if that system of government isn't really a republic in the proper sense.
In Canada, technically our Head of State is the Queen of England. Her representative is the Governor-General.
I can't remember any time our media cared enough about our Head of State's opinion on our federal government's legislation to even find out what it is and tell the country about it, and I don't think anyone's ever really been curious about her opinion on our politics except as a novelty. My dad described the Governor-General's role in our legislative process as a fail-safe method to prevent us from doing anything unconscionable. He's gonna just approve whatever we want, unless what we want is something that we absolutely cannot be allowed to do, like start executing random citizens for arbitrary reasons. However, he also seemed to think that that was a thing that would only happen once, because after exercising that power to stop us from committing an unspeakable atrocity, we would rewrite our government organization so the Governor-General was no longer a part of it.
I have no idea if he was right or not. I mostly know the Governor-General as the person who stands in that one spot in the House of Commons and turns up to the Ottawa Remembrance Day ceremony in a different branch's uniform each year.
So, the system was designed to be a compromise at it's genesis, with some tweaks along the way.
It's working as designed and the rules is understood.
[/spoiler]
Sure, sure. I'm not arguing against any of that.
I just have not seen anyone make any argument for why the electorate system is in any way preferable to a straight public vote, or as a compromise - a system of proportional distribution of electors in the states.
As a practical matter, it would be really REALLY difficult to amend the constitution to change/remove the EC system.
However, each state's legislatures are empowered to chaing the distribution of the electors based on the state outcoume. Nebraska and Maine have done this already.
Absolutely, it's difficult to amend the constitution. So the most realistic solution and a decent compromise of minimizing the risk of the overall result going against the popular vote while retaining the electorate system would probably indeed be to work on state levels to distribute electors based on the outcome a la Nebraska and Main (though preferably counting the entire state as one district for this purpouse to avoid gerrymandering). No constitutional amendment needed.
But this is a wholly different question to which system one would prefer, and I haven't seen a compelling argument to why the current electorate system should be kept. Just a slew of apologism in the vein of "but it only ignores the popular vote 8% of the time".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 16:18:59
Something I think I failed to realize when bringing this up is that the reason I can watch YouTube footage of Stephen Colbert commenting specifically on the Electoral College being the only reason Trump won, then the rest of that video contains zero references to even maybe thinking of trying to restrict it a bit, is probably because your country has argued about this for literally hundreds of years and always come to the conclusion the Electoral College is worth keeping, to the point no one even tries anymore because all possible arguments have been made and the conclusion is to keep the Electoral College.
At which point I would've realized that I probably have nothing new to add to the discussion no matter what I say, because chances are thousands of people said similar things before and the Electoral College is still there, because despite its drawbacks, it's still the best option they have. Then I would've decided not to even ask the question, or at least treat the question as something I was curious to know why, but without arguing it should change.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 16:41:56
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I don't think Republic means what you think it means.
No, he's technically right. Nowadays a republic can refer to any system of government that doesn't use a monarch, even if that system of government isn't really a republic in the proper sense.
A Republic has two qualifiers. The first is that the head of state is either elected or appointed like our President is instead of being hereditary such as a monarchy. The other component is that supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives like our Congress instead of unelected people such as found in a feudal system.
Even if a government is structured like a Republic, if supreme power is not actually held by the people and their elected representatives then it isn't actually a Republic.
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I don't think Republic means what you think it means.
No, he's technically right. Nowadays a republic can refer to any system of government that doesn't use a monarch, even if that system of government isn't really a republic in the proper sense.
Just because the commies said they were republics doesn't mean they were republics. Frankly China is a fascist state at this point (structure wise, not obsession with oompa bands and living room spaces wise)
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/republic
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.
No, there isn't. Republic only means that you have no monarchy.
You can be a republic without being a democracy. You can be a democracy without being a republic.
Soviet Russia was a republic and so is the Russian Federation. China is a republic. Ireland is a republic. Germany is a republic.
Describing yourself as a republic does nothing to actually describe how your political system works in practice, only that political power doesn't come from a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I don't think Republic means what you think it means.
No, he's technically right. Nowadays a republic can refer to any system of government that doesn't use a monarch, even if that system of government isn't really a republic in the proper sense.
Just because the commies said they were republics doesn't mean they were republics. Frankly China is a fascist state at this point (structure wise, not obsession with oompa bands and living room spaces wise)
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/republic
The third definition is just what I said.
I don't really agree with it either, but that's what it is nowadays.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Pouncey wrote: Something I think I failed to realize when bringing this up is that the reason I can watch YouTube footage of Stephen Colbert commenting specifically on the Electoral College being the only reason Trump won, then the rest of that video contains zero references to even maybe thinking of trying to restrict it a bit, is probably because your country has argued about this for literally hundreds of years and always come to the conclusion the Electoral College is worth keeping, to the point no one even tries anymore because all possible arguments have been made and the conclusion is to keep the Electoral College.
At which point I would've realized that I probably have nothing new to add to the discussion no matter what I say, because chances are thousands of people said similar things before and the Electoral College is still there, because despite its drawbacks, it's still the best option they have. Then I would've decided not to even ask the question, or at least treat the question as something I was curious to know why, but without arguing it should change.
To me it rather seems like one of those institutions that most people think is definitely not the best option.
It's just that it's so old and ingrained, plus difficult to change that people don't really care anymore. It's also not "bad enough" to gain the inertia needed to change something, considering it only comes into play every few years/decades anyway and sometimes your side is the one benefiting from the weirdness so there's not much incentive to care.
If we imagine that suddenly there were no system at all in place for electing the president and people were to propose new solutions from scratch. It's a helluva long-shot to even consider that the result would be anything near the current system. It's always a lot easier to preserve the status quo, then affect change in things like this. Even if everyone agrees to change something, it's hard to agree on what to change to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 16:54:30
That still isn't the question. It's why do people's votes matter less. Nothing about state representation was mentioned. You need to wtop thinking in terms of states. a federal, non representative office should represnt the people, not the states. The states have representation via the senate and house (although the house also does local issues).
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.
Why? Why should governments and politicians matter more than the will of the people?
Why what?
The people controls the means as to how the electors are chosen and divvied up in there own state.
You are acting like the State "construct" we have shouldn't matter...
For a federal elction, no. The Senate and house are still based in state or local interstts (the house represents the people at the local level, the senate represents the people at the state level). And I think that the president should represent the people at the federal level. The people not the state.
.Also, some refrance for those areas? A map with no context is not a good system.
Oops... sorry. The blue areas are the densely populated areas and it's the blue area vs. grey area are 50% of the population.
So your argument is the representation should be equal to the amount of land you own?
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
So you do want us to decide representation via amount of land?
The President is a federal office for the United States of America.
Let me repeat myself:
United. States. of America.
It's not:
United. STATE. of America (see the singular form of 'state'???)
So, the system was designed to be a compromise at it's genesis, with some tweaks along the way.
It's working as designed and the rules is understood.
United States of America. (I can do this too!)
Our states are not states in the traditional sense of the word, and haven't been since the constitution was created. They retain more control than, say, the provinces of Canada, but they are still just parts of the whole. The United States of America is one nation (under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all). The states have far more akin to provinces than nation-states. Because that is, effectively, what they are. And this has been proven time and time again, through hundreds of years of laws and lawsuits and civil war.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 17:06:15
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
That still isn't the question. It's why do people's votes matter less. Nothing about state representation was mentioned. You need to wtop thinking in terms of states. a federal, non representative office should represnt the people, not the states. The states have representation via the senate and house (although the house also does local issues).
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.
Why? Why should governments and politicians matter more than the will of the people?
Why what?
The people controls the means as to how the electors are chosen and divvied up in there own state.
You are acting like the State "construct" we have shouldn't matter...
For a federal elction, no. The Senate and house are still based in state or local interstts (the house represents the people at the local level, the senate represents the people at the state level). And I think that the president should represent the people at the federal level. The people not the state.
Here's your problem.
The citizens in their respective states ARE "the people".
I think you're misusing the term "federal election". The US House/Senate/President are all federal elections.
But, hey... since the system didn't work out for you, do what you can to change it.
.Also, some refrance for those areas? A map with no context is not a good system.
Oops... sorry. The blue areas are the densely populated areas and it's the blue area vs. grey area are 50% of the population.
So your argument is the representation should be equal to the amount of land you own?
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.
So you do want us to decide representation via amount of land?
The President is a federal office for the United States of America.
Let me repeat myself: United. States. of America.
It's not: United. STATE. of America (see the singular form of 'state'???)
So, the system was designed to be a compromise at it's genesis, with some tweaks along the way.
It's working as designed and the rules is understood.
United States of America. (I can do this too!)
Well isn't that fabulous!
Our states are not states in the traditional sense of the word, and haven't been since the constitution was created. They retain more control than, say, the provinces of Canada, but they are still just parts of the whole. The United States of America is one nation (under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all). The states have far more akin to provinces than nation-states. Because that is, effectively, what they are. And this has been proven time and time again, through hundreds of years of laws and lawsuits and civil war.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word' and has far more say/power than the likes of Canadian provinces.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 17:17:41
Co'tor Shas wrote: So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?
Under current why politicians would focus on anything but swing states? They don't. Bad arqument. Either way there's going to be neglected states. But currently you have such a mindbogling system where ~25 voters could matter more than 150,000,000 voters. Go figure.
~4100
~1660
