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.
I, personally, don't want millions of children of illegal citizens and many more millions lifetime entitlement benefits collectors teaming up to vote in the people offering them the biggest bribe.
The Electoral college is there for a reason.
Good luck changing the Constitution.
I think you'll be singing a different tune when Texas turns blue due to the huge number of first generation Mexican-Americans coming of age to vote in the near future. Every president will be Democratic. Then the problem with winner take all electoral college votes will be apparent.
Unless one is living in pre-Civil War days its not a good argument. There is about as much chance today of a state seceding is there is that we will send a manned space mission to Pluto. This is the kind of argument that is on par with the notion that people need "the right to keep and bear arms" to protect themselves from the federal government. Its a lame argument. I won't use more descriptive adjectives because I don't wish to offender our moderators.
Maybe I overstated the case by referring to outright secession. But regional strife is not what we need on top of other divisions. Lots of Ruby Ridges and Wacos (with the Branch Davidians) we don't need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Seriously, you make a good argument why we shouldn't have elections at all. Let's just have a dictator like Francisco Franco or Mussolini. I submit that if the candidate supported by most of the people does not win--or does not at least make it into a run off election--there is no point in having elections at all. The irony here is Americans love to preach to the rest of the world about the importance of elections and democracy. Than, we have an election where the candidate with fewer popular votes than his opponent wins. Seriously, if I were a foreigner and I heard our rhetoric, I think I would laugh.
There is a reason why every mature democracy elects its head of government in a roundabout manner rather than pure popular vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
This is an interesting comment. No one here has talked about elections in India at all. We have no way of knowing whether a fair process is followed or not. We also don't know how the whole ID situation is handled in India. Perhaps, they make a point of coming to slums and making ID for voters on the spot? I don't know. The only kind of ID law I could support is one where the government comes to the people and makes the ID for them. No thanks. I've stood in too many lines in social security offices and my local DMV to have confidence that such a system will result in every citizen who wants ID getting ID. I lost my daughter's original social security card and literally spent hours trying to replace it. Finally, ID is not required to get public assistance. If you want to talk about that I will.
The courts continue to hold most voter ID laws unconstitutional. I prefer the court's reasoning to yours.
If someone wants to vote shouldn't they have to make a little bit of effort?
I think you'll be singing a different tune when Texas turns blue due to the huge number of first generation Mexican-Americans coming of age to vote in the near future. Every president will be Democratic. Then the problem with winner take all electoral college votes will be apparent.
This is why we need a European-style proportional parliamentary form of government.
Maybe I overstated the case by referring to outright secession. But regional strife is not what we need on top of other divisions. Lots of Ruby Ridges and Wacos (with the Branch Davidians) we don't need.
There is a reason why every mature democracy elects its head of government in a roundabout manner rather than pure popular vote.
If someone wants to vote shouldn't they have to make a little bit of effort?
Thank you for admitting that the statements about secession were a bit strong.
Parliamentary systems function differently than the USA does. The head of the majority party becomes prime minister, chancellor, or premier. The USA is not a parliamentary system. Most countries in the world seem to choose the parliamentary model of governing.
Voting isn't a privilege. Its a right. That's what's wrong with your analysis. That's why the courts time and time again hold that attempts by states to place restrictions on voting are unconstitutional.
Thank you for admitting that the statements about secession were a bit strong.
Parliamentary systems function differently than the USA does. The head of the majority party becomes prime minister, chancellor, or premier. The USA is not a parliamentary system. Most countries in the world seem to choose the parliamentary model of governing.
Under the parliamentary system, the major parties have to compromise to form a government together. So let's say a Party A runs on the platform of giving everyone free lifetime welfare benefits, and Party B wants to get rid of welfare altogether. Party A gets 50.5% of the votes, and Party B gets 49.5%.
Under the Winner Takes All system, Party A gets to form the entire government. Party B can only act via their seats in House and Senate.
Under the parliamentary system, Party A gets to select the President but Party B still gets practically half of governmental positions, probably gets to select the Vice President, plus whatever House and Senate seats it won.
Moreover, the US Winner Takes All system encourages the two-party rule. Only the two largest parties can realistically win, which is why our two parties are really not parties but party coalitions. The parliamentary system favors smaller parties more in tune with their support base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Voting isn't a privilege. Its a right. That's what's wrong with your analysis. That's why the courts time and time again hold that attempts by states to place restrictions on voting are unconstitutional.
However, to protect this right, we must ensure that there's no fraud.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 11-28-2016 at 09:31 AM..
Under the parliamentary system, the major parties have to compromise to form a government together. So let's say a Party A runs on the platform of giving everyone free lifetime welfare benefits, and Party B wants to get rid of welfare altogether. Party A gets 50.5% of the votes, and Party B gets 49.5%.
Under the Winner Takes All system, Party A gets to form the entire government. Party B can only act via their seats in House and Senate.
Under the parliamentary system, Party A gets to select the President but Party B still gets practically half of governmental positions, probably gets to select the Vice President, plus whatever House and Senate seats it won.
Moreover, the US Winner Takes All system encourages the two-party rule. Only the two largest parties can realistically win, which is why our two parties are really not parties but party coalitions. The parliamentary system favors smaller parties more in tune with their support base.
However, to protect this right, we must ensure that there's no fraud.
Agreed, but actions taken have to bear some reasonable relationship to the problem. I'm not kidding when I mentioned the struggles I had getting a duplicate social security card for my daughter so she could get a driver's license. It involved hours of waiting at both the social security office and the DMV. I was also required to dig up birth certificates and a passport. I suspect many of the poor who want to vote don't have a passport. There is no guarantee they will have reasonable access to a social security office or to a DMV. The rural poor may have to travel long distances to obtain such access.
The courts have ruled on a number of these cases and what the rulings come down to is that you have balance the gravity of the potential harm against the burden imposed on some groups by voter ID laws. The problem is there is very little evidence that people who are ineligible to vote are actually voting. On the other hand, ID laws which place all of the burden on the voter when it comes to obtaining ID are preventing significant numbers of the poor elderly population and the rural poor from registering to vote and casting a ballot. So what we have is a potential harm being balanced against a real problem that is present for a fairly large class of people. Its why states are generally losing these cases.
Threads on voter ID laws are not new to CDF. I have commented similarly on a number of those threads. The only voter ID law which I would find acceptable is one which places the burden on state authorities to come to you and provide you with ID at your place of residence. So far, no states seem willing to accept this responsibility.
Ultimately, all of us get an opinion on anything we want including whether voter ID laws ought to be constitutional. The courts though get the final word. I'll tell you what I tell other people: I prefer the opinion of the courts to your opinion--and those of others-- on this subject.
1. Do you think it would be better to eliminate the Electoral College. Why or why not?
2. Do you think that more people would vote if the winner was simply the person who received the most votes? And in conjunction with that, do you think that a POTUS candidate must receive at least 50.01 percent of the popular vote (with one or more run-off elections, if necessary)?
3. Do you think that if the Electoral College system were eliminated, that people living in large metropolitan areas would determine who would be POTUS from then on?
1. No. On one end, I'm not so sure it matters at this points as political parties sort of blew it, but the Electoral College exists to prevent direct democracy, which the founding fathers had a profound fear of. At one point, this even applied to the Senate, where the state's senate would select who their Senator in DC would be, but this was scrapped in favor of a popular vote. The President is currently more or less voted for by states rather than majorities, where a single popular opinion (James Madison called them "factions") would basically rule over everyone. As I said, political parties sort of muddied this, but I do think the Electoral College is a better option. I also think we need to amend it a bit and have electoral votes awarded proportionally rather than be a winner take all method.
2. No, I do not think more people would vote. As is, popular vote more or less decides how the electoral votes will look. The myth that your vote doesn't count needs to be dispelled. I also do not think the POTUS needs to receive more than 50%. The POTUS is elected if they have the most electoral votes overall.
3. Maybe, though perhaps people in rural American, who are overwhelmingly conservative, would outnumber the liberal massive cities. Again, the electoral college is meant to prevent this sort of thing. As I already said, political parties sort of messed that up, but I still feel what we have is better than what those who are dissatisfied with the results of the 2016 election are calling for.
This is why we need a European-style proportional parliamentary form of government.
There are several problems with that. One is that all governments are coalitions, which means there is little accountability, little change from one government to the next and lots of "kicking the can down the road." That is one reason that European countries cannot deal with the immigration crisis or for that matter any crisis that hits them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Thank you for admitting that the statements about secession were a bit strong.
You are welcome. I always try to be courteous and fair. But things got a bit scary in the mid-1990's with Ruby Ridge, Waco, Ted Kaczinsky (sp), Oklahoma City and the nest of militias exposed by that explosion. While of course secession was not going to happen there was the possibility of large-scale violence and the fact of significant casualties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Parliamentary systems function differently than the USA does. The head of the majority party becomes prime minister, chancellor, or premier. The USA is not a parliamentary system. Most countries in the world seem to choose the parliamentary model of governing.
Even presidential systems such as France (a hybrid), Russia, Mexico, Chile and most of other Latin American countries have runoffs for President. Which still falls in the category of roundabout methods of selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Voting isn't a privilege. Its a right. That's what's wrong with your analysis. That's why the courts time and time again hold that attempts by states to place restrictions on voting are unconstitutional.
I agreed with Baker v. Carr, etc. but practically requiring states to come to people's homes and gather their votes is a bridge too far. There should be some civic knowledge, commitment and involvement accompanying voting.
The electoral college debate is raised AFTER almost every Presidential election by the losing party. They imagine that the election results would have been different if a different criteria (popular vote) were applied to the results of the electoral college vote.
The thing that gets overlooked is that the approach to campaigning for President would have changed dramatically IF the President were elected by popular vote, versus electoral vote. The candidates would simply spend all of their time in California, New York, Florida and a few other large, swing states ... and ignore the rest.
This is like having a debate over how many children one should have, after they are enrolled in school. If people want to change to a popular vote system ... or a minority recount system ... or anything else that produces the results they want, the time to do that is BEFORE the campaign and election, not AFTER!
The electoral college debate is raised AFTER almost every Presidential election by the losing party. They imagine that the election results would have been different if a different criteria (popular vote) were applied to the results of the electoral college vote.
The thing that gets overlooked is that the approach to campaigning for President would have changed dramatically IF the President were elected by popular vote, versus electoral vote. The candidates would simply spend all of their time in California, New York, Florida and a few other large, swing states ... and ignore the rest.
This is like having a debate over how many children one should have, after they are enrolled in school. If people want to change to a popular vote system ... or a minority recount system ... or anything else that produces the results they want, the time to do that is BEFORE the campaign and election, not AFTER!
If you want to pretend that Trump would have won even if this were a popular vote contest, you have my permission to do so. It is extremely unlikely given the fact that Trump's greatest support was outside the cities and suburban areas of this country. Claiming that he would have won doesn't even pass the giggle test.
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.
