Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 88 of 88

Thread: The Electoral College Sucks

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Pelado is on a roll this week.
    hell, he's having a career year.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  2. #62

    Default

    FTR, I like the electoral college system.

  3. #63
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    Semantics, maybe wrong word? The constitution is amendable, which is similar in nature to a policy, it just has a more robust mechanism for change. Though the argument remains the same. If some believe the need for the electoral college has ended and are willing to invoke said mechanisms (which will require argumentation), then simply establishing a change to the assumptions of the original arguments is necessary but insufficient. We are not the same society.

    It's the same problem with invoking the inscription at the statue of liberty as justification for open borders. Even if that inscription was part of the original statue (it wasn't), invoking sentiment from well over 200 years ago is not sufficient argument. Things have changed--and those changes have to be articulated and examined.
    I think the amendment process is made difficult precisely because it was never meant to be treated like a policy or a mere argument. It is a largely procedural framework on which all the policies and arguments of any day may be hung. The confusion here is that even if slavery was the only motivation to adopt an EC, and I don't think that is necessarily true, the fact is that the larger procedural issue is the diffusion of power at the presidential level from concentrated populations centers in favor of putting the states on a more equal footing.

    It is not the same problem at all as the inscription of the statue of liberty. That inscription is an aspiration or hope, but doesnt even rise to the level of a policy let alone a constitutional process.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I think the amendment process is made difficult precisely because it was never meant to be treated like a policy or a mere argument. It is a largely procedural framework on which all the policies and arguments of any day may be hung. The confusion here is that even if slavery was the only motivation to adopt an EC, and I don't think that is necessarily true, the fact is that the larger procedural issue is the diffusion of power at the presidential level from concentrated populations centers in favor of putting the states on a more equal footing.
    It's possible the founding fathers would be surprised by how little has changed. It would be interesting to discuss it with them.

    That's the same argument I've been making. Whatever the initial reasons for the EC, any change to it cannot be limited to those original reasons. Likely the initial reasons were not fully inclusive, and society has changed too significantly.

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    It is not the same problem at all as the inscription of the statue of liberty. That inscription is an aspiration or hope, but doesnt even rise to the level of a policy let alone a constitutional process.
    But the sentiment and thinking surrounding both is similar. Making the assumption that original circumstances for existence of policy/popular sentiments remain stable through time, which I oppose. It goes something like this, "since the EC was about slavery, and we no longer have slavery, we can do away with the EC, regardless of the role it plays in modern society." I see the same reasoning about the inscription from proponents of open borders (as if it was at least the universal sentiment of the populace at the time, which it likely wasn't), "we should continue to have open borders, because that it what the US was founded on".

    In both cases those points should be discussed, but the discourse should mainly be about the affects of change on current society. The past should of course inform future decisions, but it shouldn't dictate them.

  5. #65
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,520
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  6. #66
    Chronic Poseur USUC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Riverton, UT
    Posts
    5,057

    Default

    I think strong convictions on avoiding a tyranny of the majority is well documented in the writings of the "founding fathers" as well as the founding documents. This shouldn't be in dispute. The function of the EC is well within this frame of thought.

    However, I am somewhat sympathetic to the complaints of those who say their vote doesn't count in a state that is consistently blue or red. If all states could get on board, each could award their electoral votes proportional to how the population voted. In 2016, for instance, Utah would have awarded 3 electoral votes to Trump, 2 to HRC, and 1 to McMuffin (Although HRC and McMuffin had roughly the same votes So maybe 4 to Trump and 1 each to the others).

    I'm sure I've already laid this out back in this thread somewhere. I have no idea how this would change the outcome of presidential elections though. It might just all be a wash most of the time anyway.

  7. #67
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    It's possible the founding fathers would be surprised by how little has changed. It would be interesting to discuss it with them.

    That's the same argument I've been making. Whatever the initial reasons for the EC, any change to it cannot be limited to those original reasons. Likely the initial reasons were not fully inclusive, and society has changed too significantly.
    I don’t thnk it is the same argument. You’re saying that because reasons change policies can change. I’m saying the EC is not a policy implemented based on the trends of the day but is a process that sits above policies and that a justifying reason changes doesn’t vitiate the need for, or legitimacy of, the process. The EC is a good example.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  8. #68
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USUC View Post
    I think strong convictions on avoiding a tyranny of the majority is well documented in the writings of the "founding fathers" as well as the founding documents. This shouldn't be in dispute. The function of the EC is well within this frame of thought.

    However, I am somewhat sympathetic to the complaints of those who say their vote doesn't count in a state that is consistently blue or red. If all states could get on board, each could award their electoral votes proportional to how the population voted. In 2016, for instance, Utah would have awarded 3 electoral votes to Trump, 2 to HRC, and 1 to McMuffin (Although HRC and McMuffin had roughly the same votes So maybe 4 to Trump and 1 each to the others).

    I'm sure I've already laid this out back in this thread somewhere. I have no idea how this would change the outcome of presidential elections though. It might just all be a wash most of the time anyway.
    i think you have said this before and I still think it is a reasonable Position.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I don’t thnk it is the same argument. You’re saying that because reasons change policies can change. I’m saying the EC is not a policy implemented based on the trends of the day but is a process that sits above policies and that a justifying reason changes doesn’t vitiate the need for, or legitimacy of, the process. The EC is a good example.
    The entire constitution was founded on the circumstances of the day (including a historical perspective). The fact that it included an amendment process at all implies that it was known that it could not have been fully inclusive of future societal developments. There were only 2 provisions made in article 5 that exclude affectation of original text (and one of them was time-boxed), hence alteration of original text via the amendment process was expected. The EC is therefore amendable and does not sit above any other constitutional directive. I don't understand how amending the EC is any different than the the other 33 amendments.

  10. #70
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    The entire constitution was founded on the circumstances of the day (including a historical perspective). The fact that it included an amendment process at all implies that it was known that it could not have been fully inclusive of future societal developments. There were only 2 provisions made in article 5 that exclude affectation of original text (and one of them was time-boxed), hence alteration of original text via the amendment process was expected. The EC is therefore amendable and does not sit above any other constitutional directive. I don't understand how amending the EC is any different than the the other 33 amendments.
    Because itís a bad idea. Which in fairness makes it no different than several amendments.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Because it’s a bad idea. Which in fairness makes it no different than several amendments.
    I agree it's a bad idea, my job would be to articulate my reasoning if someone proposed such an amendment and I was a member of the body in which it was being debated. But it's not untouchable, there's a process defined to change it.

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    It preserves power at the state level, which power has rapidly diminished over the past 100 or so years. The tenth amendment is almost null and void at this point. But I think the idea of being governed at the state level moreso than at the federal level is more important.

    A nationwide popular vote for president would ensure we’d have a president that is elected by the urban and suburban areas of the nation. The rural areas would have little to no say. That’s already the case with senators who are no longer elected by state reps but instead by statewide popular vote.

    I guess I’m a bit tainted in that I have in-laws that live in a rural area of a liberal state. They feel like they have no say in state government and the enacted regulations are driving their businesses a couple miles east to Idaho, which hasn’t yet become as anti rural as their current state of residence.
    Those are good points. But ironically in your in-laws' case, under the current system their vote for President isn't counted. So their voice is shut out on both the state and federal levels.
    Last edited by BlueK; 12-05-2018 at 07:54 AM.

  13. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Those are good points. But ironically in your in-laws' case, under the current system their vote for President isn't counted. So their voice is shut out on both the state and federal levels.
    I don't understand the "my vote doesn't count" complaint. Unless the election is decided by a single vote, no single vote actually matters. So whether the vote goes to a national count or is filtered by the state is irrelevant IMO.

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I don't understand the "my vote doesn't count" complaint. Unless the election is decided by a single vote, no single vote actually matters. So whether the vote goes to a national count or is filtered by the state is irrelevant IMO.
    yeah, you're technically correct I guess. Same reason to go ahead and vote third party then, right?

    Speaking of which, there are rumors John Kasich is running probably as an independent. I wish he'd try it as a Republican though to give Trump a challenge and rough him up a bit. However if he managed to run a good campaign it's conceivable he could carry something in the EC and send a close election into the House of Reps, which could make things really interesting.
    Last edited by BlueK; 12-05-2018 at 11:33 AM.

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    yeah, you're technically correct I guess. Same reason to go ahead and vote third party then, right?

    Speaking of which, there are rumors John Kasich is running probably as an independent. I wish he'd try it as a Republican though to give Trump a challenge and rough him up a bit. However if he managed to run a good campaign it's conceivable he could carry something in the EC and send a close election into the House of Reps, which could make things really interesting.
    Kasich as an independent would just hand the election to the Dem nominee. If Kasich managed some EC votes they would come in solid red states like Utah. Swing states would swing blue with Trump and Kasich splitting the conservative vote. The election wouldn't be close.

  16. #76
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Those are good points. But ironically in your in-laws' case, under the current system their vote for President isn't counted. So their voice is shut out on both the state and federal levels.
    The alternative is a nation wide popular vote. Iíd venture to say that a majority would be needed for election, which is something Clinton didnít even have. Al Gore didnít have it in 2000. Would you prefer a runoff between the top two candidates if a majority isnít obtained or something like England where a weird coalition thing is used?
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, ďspectator discipleshipĒ is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  17. #77
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I don't understand the "my vote doesn't count" complaint. Unless the election is decided by a single vote, no single vote actually matters. So whether the vote goes to a national count or is filtered by the state is irrelevant IMO.
    Exactly. Keep the electoral college.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  18. #78
    a day late/a dollar short Sullyute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Exactly. Keep the electoral college.
    I disagree. One person one vote. Get rid of the electoral college.
    "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

  19. #79
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sullyute View Post
    I disagree. One person one vote. Get rid of the electoral college.
    Each person has one vote using the electoral college, too.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I don't understand the "my vote doesn't count" complaint. Unless the election is decided by a single vote, no single vote actually matters. So whether the vote goes to a national count or is filtered by the state is irrelevant IMO.
    this is also the reason why a rational person should probably not vote
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  21. #81
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,279

    Default The Electoral College Sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    this is also the reason why a rational person should probably not vote
    Indeed, the 2016 election provides a great deal of evidence that they donít.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  22. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    this is also the reason why a rational person should probably not vote
    Not exactly (I know we've discussed this before): a rational person (and by rational ... rational they way it gets defined in economics) and their preferences are such that they get no/little enjoyment (utility in econ speak) from things other than their impact on the outcome. Voting because you get a kick out of filling out your ballot on a touch screen voting machine is a perfect rational reason to vote (at least they way it's defined in economics).
    Last edited by pelagius; 12-05-2018 at 06:13 PM.

  23. #83
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelagius View Post
    Not exactly (I know we've discussed this before): a rational person (and by rational ... rational they way it gets defined in economics) and their preferences are such that they get no/little enjoyment (utility in econ speak) from things other than their impact on the outcome. Voting because you get a kick out of filling out your ballot on a touch screen voting machine is a perfect rational reason to vote (at least they way it's defined in economics).
    Sheesh. Do they not have sports fans in economics? Thereís a much simpler explanation: when you vote you are part of the team. Same reason you pay 50 bucks to sit in nosebleeds.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  24. #84
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Sheesh. Do they not have sports fans in economics? Thereís a much simpler explanation: when you vote you are part of the team. Same reason you pay 50 bucks to sit in nosebleeds.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  25. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Sheesh. Do they not have sports fans in economics? There’s a much simpler explanation: when you vote you are part of the team. Same reason you pay 50 bucks to sit in nosebleeds.
    I'm sure that's a simpler explanation to something.

  26. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    Kasich as an independent would just hand the election to the Dem nominee. If Kasich managed some EC votes they would come in solid red states like Utah. Swing states would swing blue with Trump and Kasich splitting the conservative vote. The election wouldn't be close.
    I'm not sure about that. Trump is not in any way a normal Republican or "conservative" figure. He is so polarizing that I think an independent getting a decent chunk of votes nationally might actually be taking more votes from the dem side from moderates or independents who have already decided not to vote for Trump no matter what. Think of someone here like Moliere or any number of others on here who don't necessarily like the democrats and who would otherwise vote for a traditional republican, but who have stated they can't vote for Trump.

    Thinking specifically about the EC, Trump couldn't have won last time without swing states WI, PA and MI. Those states were extremely close in 2016 but are currently leaning toward the dems based on the last election and current polling. Trump could very easily lose them in the next election. However, some moderates and independents who are leaning to the dems right now if they found a more natural vote in Kasich would then take enough votes from the dem to help Trump win those states again. I don't think the standard assumptions (like independent candidates always help the dem candidate) work with Trump.
    Last edited by BlueK; 12-06-2018 at 11:06 AM.

  27. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    I'm not sure about that. Trump is not in any way a normal Republican or "conservative" figure. He is so polarizing that I think an independent getting a decent chunk of votes nationally might actually be taking more votes from the dem side from moderates or independents who have already decided not to vote for Trump no matter what. Think of someone here like Moliere or any number of others on here who don't necessarily like the democrats and who would otherwise vote for a traditional republican, but who have stated they can't vote for Trump.

    Thinking specifically about the EC, Trump couldn't have won last time without swing states WI, PA and MI. Those states were extremely close in 2016 but are currently leaning toward the dems based on the last election and current polling. Trump could very easily lose them in the next election. However, some moderates and independents who are leaning to the dems right now if they found a more natural vote in Kasich would then take enough votes from the dem to help Trump win those states again. I don't think the standard assumptions (like independent candidates always help the dem candidate) work with Trump.

    I differ politically from Kasich but I really like him and have been on record that I would have preferred him over Hillary, but I hope he doesn’t run. It would reckless to enable a Trump victory.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  28. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    I'm not sure about that. Trump is not in any way a normal Republican or "conservative" figure. He is so polarizing that I think an independent getting a decent chunk of votes nationally might actually be taking more votes from the dem side from moderates or independents who have already decided not to vote for Trump no matter what. Think of someone here like Moliere or any number of others on here who don't necessarily like the democrats and who would otherwise vote for a traditional republican, but who have stated they can't vote for Trump.

    Thinking specifically about the EC, Trump couldn't have won last time without swing states WI, PA and MI. Those states were extremely close in 2016 but are currently leaning toward the dems based on the last election and current polling. Trump could very easily lose them in the next election. However, some moderates and independents who are leaning to the dems right now if they found a more natural vote in Kasich would then take enough votes from the dem to help Trump win those states again. I don't think the standard assumptions (like independent candidates always help the dem candidate) work with Trump.
    Is it a standard assumption that indpendent candidates help the dems? Doesn't it depend on which way the independent candidate leans?

    In reality, which side Kasich affect depends heavily on who the dems nominate. If they nominate Joe Biden, he probably hurts Trump. If they nominate Warren, he probably hurts her.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •