Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-15-2016, 01:13 PM
 
1,290 posts, read 584,723 times
Reputation: 761

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Other democracies take different approaches besides popular vote, the most common method seems to be a constitutional monarchy:

England - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Netherlands - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Germany - electoral college (the last time they used the popular vote referendum method, Hitler was chosen).
Spain - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Switzerland - leader elected by Parliament
Vatican - elected by cardinals
Belgium - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Italy - leader elected by Parliament
Israel - elected by parliament
Albania - elected by parliament
Denmark - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Greece - elected by parliament
Hungary - elected by parliament
India - electoral college

In the constitutional monarchies, the method of election of a leader of an executive branch (i.e. prime minister) is so varied as to be confusing: some are appointed by the king or queen, some are chosen by a separate "president", some by the parliament, some are simply appointed by the party with the largest majority voted in office and then approved by the king/queen (UK for instance).
I haven't gone through the entire list, but most that I am familiar with have a general election, and the party that wins 50% or better of the "popular vote" takes power.
In cases where there is no party that wins 50% of the vote, they try and form a coalition with junior parties.
The point is, the party in power must represent 50% or better to hold office.

If that doesn't occur, because the parties cannot agree (like Spain for the past year), another General Election is held.
Also, the Heads of State, are not quite comparable to the role of US President.
Generally speaking, they don't have Executive Orders and are much more the spokesperson of their party then a swashbuckling leader.

But it's the democratic legitimacy that is the main issue here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-15-2016, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,869 posts, read 16,251,228 times
Reputation: 29224
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war View Post
The reality that states put up Referenda questions on the ballot contradict this.

Secondly, why shouldn't major population centers make those decisions based on their numbers?
They are the engines of the economy and the sources of so much of our tax money.
I don't see a very strong reason their votes should count for less?

One man one vote, can't be any simpler.
Yes. You'll notice it's blue states carrying red states when it comes to where tax dollars generated by blue states gets distributed. Yet they get shafted having only as many senators as the low-population states where tax-collected dollars end up being spent. And their popular votes don't count as much in presidential elections.

New York, California, and other deep blue states get back far less than every $1 their citizens pay out. West Virginia, meanwhile, rakes in more than $2.50 for every $1 it's citizens pay in Federal taxes. Other red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Alaska, South Carolina, all benefit greatly from Federal spending that creates thousands of jobs in their states. The only state getting back more than its dollar that voted for Hillary Clinton is New Mexico, which collects a lot because of the Army's White Sands Missile Range, three Air Force bases, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the nuclear waste isolation pilot plant are major sources of the spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 03:59 PM
 
1,835 posts, read 3,246,088 times
Reputation: 3788
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
These are the reasons I can come up with:

1. Difficulty in the horse and buggy era transmitting popular votes to a national central location so they all be counted.

2. Fear of democracy. This was particularly true when a nation had a high percentage of illiterate people.

3. Giving more political power to small states which was in accord with giving every state two senators, irrespective of its small population. One must ask though why the small states felt they needed this protection in the context of a federal union. Much of the reason may have been to guarantee that institutions such as slavery were protected.

Given the fact that communications and transportation have advanced by leaps and bounds and most of the population is no longer illiterate, do sufficient reasons still exist for determining the presidency based on an electoral vote?

I strongly lean towards deciding this based on the popular vote.

Can someone give me other reasons that support maintaining the electoral college as an institution?
Without reading 12 pages of responses...the founding fathers knew they needed the rural areas to keep the population centers alive.

Food comes from rural areas - the population centers would starve if they were not supported by rural areas...if the laws were passed such that the rural areas no longer received a vote, and all the BS came from Washington, they would just stop producing that food, and let the cities starve to death.

Not AS big of a concern today, what with global trade and all - but the bottom line is that the cities still need the rural areas. There probably is not more than 5 days of food supply total in all of the cities. Imagine the farmers just saying, I quit. You guys fend for yourselves. Millions would starve to death. That NYC highrise would be pretty pointless with no food in a 50 mile radius.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 04:07 PM
 
1,835 posts, read 3,246,088 times
Reputation: 3788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
That's what the Senate is for -- equal representation for each state, regardless of size. Logically, to counterbalance the power of the states in the Senate, the President should be chosen by popular vote. Checks and balances.

I don't know why people think the Founding Fathers are infallible. They made mistakes; the fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times is testament to that. In truth the Electoral College was a messy, awkward compromise that was shaped by the politics of their time and was not a timeless masterpiece of governmental design.

Logically an electoral college with winner-take-all votes in each state results in the largest number of "wasted votes." Likewise, a national popular vote results in exactly zero wasted votes, every vote counts. Getting rid of the EC is long overdue and would make the government more balanced in terms of states vs. people.
It would not balance government power of states v people...it would fundamentally alter the way the country is governed...The ONLY people that would matter would be those in cities. Presidents would pay ZERO attention to small states. NONE. No campaign would ever stop anywhere except a big city.

Rural people would be completely unrepresented. Farmers, Ranchers, Small business owners 100% at the whim of what someone in the city thinks.

What happens when the farmer stops shipping his food to the cities b/c they are not represented any longer? The cities would die quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,235,550 times
Reputation: 8828
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
Without reading 12 pages of responses...the founding fathers knew they needed the rural areas to keep the population centers alive.

Food comes from rural areas - the population centers would starve if they were not supported by rural areas...if the laws were passed such that the rural areas no longer received a vote, and all the BS came from Washington, they would just stop producing that food, and let the cities starve to death.

Not AS big of a concern today, what with global trade and all - but the bottom line is that the cities still need the rural areas. There probably is not more than 5 days of food supply total in all of the cities. Imagine the farmers just saying, I quit. You guys fend for yourselves. Millions would starve to death. That NYC highrise would be pretty pointless with no food in a 50 mile radius.
They are not rural. With the exception of Maine the small states are all mostly urban. My favorite is that NY is far more rural than RI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 04:21 PM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,777,749 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
Yes. You'll notice it's blue states carrying red states when it comes to where tax dollars generated by blue states gets distributed. Yet they get shafted having only as many senators as the low-population states where tax-collected dollars end up being spent. And their popular votes don't count as much in presidential elections.

New York, California, and other deep blue states get back far less than every $1 their citizens pay out. West Virginia, meanwhile, rakes in more than $2.50 for every $1 it's citizens pay in Federal taxes. Other red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Alaska, South Carolina, all benefit greatly from Federal spending that creates thousands of jobs in their states. The only state getting back more than its dollar that voted for Hillary Clinton is New Mexico, which collects a lot because of the Army's White Sands Missile Range, three Air Force bases, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the nuclear waste isolation pilot plant are major sources of the spending.
You forget the House of Reps: California has 53. North Dakota has 1. Some of the southern states benefit more due to entitlement programs. Simply - they are poorer states.
Also, for 4 of the last 5 Senate sessions the "blue" party has held the majority. I know of no noticable redistribution of tax funds to blue states during that period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 04:59 PM
 
14,327 posts, read 14,129,578 times
Reputation: 45539
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
Without reading 12 pages of responses...the founding fathers knew they needed the rural areas to keep the population centers alive.

Food comes from rural areas - the population centers would starve if they were not supported by rural areas...if the laws were passed such that the rural areas no longer received a vote, and all the BS came from Washington, they would just stop producing that food, and let the cities starve to death.

Not AS big of a concern today, what with global trade and all - but the bottom line is that the cities still need the rural areas. There probably is not more than 5 days of food supply total in all of the cities. Imagine the farmers just saying, I quit. You guys fend for yourselves. Millions would starve to death. That NYC highrise would be pretty pointless with no food in a 50 mile radius.
This reply is typical of someone who fails to understand the importance of all players in a market economy. Yes, the farmer plays a critical role in growing food. However, the people in the cities play an equally important role. First of all, they pay in currency to consume the food the farmer produces. Second, the bank and financial system which is located in cities loans the farmer money to pay his expenses while he is waiting to sell his crop. Third, people in a far away states produce the fertilizer, the tractor, and insecticide the farmer needs to grow his produce. All players in this process are important and all depend upon each other. The importance of each player is best described by the market value of what they contribute to the process. Four tons of barley sells for X$. One tractor sells for Y$

The farmer does not quit producing food because his income is dependent on it. He has no problem accepting paper currency in exchange for what he grows because the paper currency has a defined value that all the players recognize.

Be that as it may, there is no more justification for a person in a rural area having more of a vote than a person in an urban area. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution gives persons in all states the "equal protection of the laws". I would assert giving one person a vote that has more power than another person is a denial of equal protection of the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
7,614 posts, read 4,521,235 times
Reputation: 12661
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war View Post
The "Founding Fathers" also considered black people 3 fifths of a person and women had no vote at all.
Yet that is something that changed over time.

I don't see any particularly convincing case against one man, one vote.
All equal.
And this was fixed a long long time ago.

America was founded in the time of Kings. The Kings lorded over Nobles. Nobles lorded over the serfs. Serfs didn't have many rights. Land ownership slowly moved from the King to the Nobles to the serfs, but rights were still diminished.

However, the severely unwanted, disaffected, profit seeking or religious groups received official ok to travel to the New World with independent charters allowing them to live and improve land on behalf of the King.

The States then rallied together in defeat of the English, with a bit of help from France. With the first successful independence revolt achieved, the question remained on what the country will look like. Was there 13 countries, or one country? In some fashion, the original Articles of Incorporation looked more like the EU today, than the United States of today. However, in the beginning, the States were the main governing bodies that were United in an alliance.

The alliance quickly became Federalized after the initial Articles proved too weak, but even then a State like Georgia did not want New York making its decisions. Thus the electoral college and the cementing agreement of how the States would agree to work together.

It still holds true to this day. Why would a State lower its own representation in the government below that of a minimum state. The census is still conducted to reallocate delegates, but the minimum delegation will remain at 3. Anyone running for office accepts that the electoral college will govern the decision making. These have been the rules from the very beginning. I voted for Clinton, but I certainly would not want her to win at expense of the very system that has allowed for 44 consecutive peaceful transfers of power and served as a beacon of light to rest of the world on a better way of transferring power.

Now is when we should be proud of being American. Our system worked. It didn't give us what the majority wanted, but in how many other countries would you have a peaceful transfer of power from Obama to Trump. Trump has catcalled Obama's legitimacy from the start. They are rivals. Yet the America will go forward. For Democrats, rather than demonizing or dismissing the flyover states, it looks like there's a pretty big piece of the country that is feeling excluded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 06:57 PM
 
14,327 posts, read 14,129,578 times
Reputation: 45539
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
And this was fixed a long long time ago.

America was founded in the time of Kings. The Kings lorded over Nobles. Nobles lorded over the serfs. Serfs didn't have many rights. Land ownership slowly moved from the King to the Nobles to the serfs, but rights were still diminished.

However, the severely unwanted, disaffected, profit seeking or religious groups received official ok to travel to the New World with independent charters allowing them to live and improve land on behalf of the King.

The States then rallied together in defeat of the English, with a bit of help from France. With the first successful independence revolt achieved, the question remained on what the country will look like. Was there 13 countries, or one country? In some fashion, the original Articles of Incorporation looked more like the EU today, than the United States of today. However, in the beginning, the States were the main governing bodies that were United in an alliance.

The alliance quickly became Federalized after the initial Articles proved too weak, but even then a State like Georgia did not want New York making its decisions. Thus the electoral college and the cementing agreement of how the States would agree to work together.

It still holds true to this day. Why would a State lower its own representation in the government below that of a minimum state. The census is still conducted to reallocate delegates, but the minimum delegation will remain at 3. Anyone running for office accepts that the electoral college will govern the decision making. These have been the rules from the very beginning. I voted for Clinton, but I certainly would not want her to win at expense of the very system that has allowed for 44 consecutive peaceful transfers of power and served as a beacon of light to rest of the world on a better way of transferring power.

Now is when we should be proud of being American. Our system worked. It didn't give us what the majority wanted, but in how many other countries would you have a peaceful transfer of power from Obama to Trump. Trump has catcalled Obama's legitimacy from the start. They are rivals. Yet the America will go forward. For Democrats, rather than demonizing or dismissing the flyover states, it looks like there's a pretty big piece of the country that is feeling excluded.


Its not a question of what the "states want". States don't want anything. States are artificial constructs, not living breathing humans with brains. This is a fallacy I hear repeated over and over again by those voicing supporting for continuing an antiquated political function.

Its simply a question of what the people in each state want. The difference is that some states have small populations and others have large populations. Since I thought this country was committed to the principle of majority rule in elections, I find it rather mind boggling that so many people defend a system where the winner can win with fewer votes than his/her opponent.

All people should be treated as equals and that treatment requires that the vote of no one person should count for that of any other person. The electoral college does precisely this. You can only defend the EC by making some crazy argument that some people deserve to have their vote count for more than other people. Rural voters are no more important than urban voters. Minority voters have no less value that white voters do. Voters in Cheyenne, Wyoming have no more implicit value than voters in San Francisco, California do. Unfortunately, the EC treats them as though they do.

Voting rights are of critical importance to people and this importance is recognized by the Supreme Court. In a series of decisions, the SC ruled that states had to provide representation to citizens based on the "one man one vote principle". They require congressional districts be apportioned equally or within 1000 voters. States cannot base representation in their state legislatures on anything other than population. Schemes that attempt to give each county in a state equal numbers of senators or representatives in a state legislature have been rejected as unconstitutional by the SC.

I hope someday to see a popular vote and to see the plurality or majority of Americans actually prevail in an election. I'm sorry this seems controversial to some people. I don't see much point in voting if the majority--or at least plurality--doesn't rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 08:43 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,497 posts, read 16,591,230 times
Reputation: 29674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Why does everyone that discusses dismissing the EC totally avoid or dismiss the issue with state representation and sovereignty that is shared via a careful system of compromise, the "union" of states that is the very foundation of this county and the constitution? Not only via the presidential election, but just about every part of daily life. Every single one of you simply gloss over it. Is it that you simply don't "get it"?

Look at the flag - do you see one star? You see 50. What does that represent to you?
The EU is a miserable failure. Look at Brexit. Look at the perpetual bailouts of Greece.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top