PDA

View Full Version : If you think it matters...


machievelli
11-05-2008, 12:50 AM
I am one of the oldest of those who post on this forum, and I can tell you right now, it doesn't matter who wins the election, we as Americans lose.

I will explain:

Politics here have been canalized between Republican and Democrat since the 1930s. forty percent on one side, 40 on the others, and everyone else caught in the middle. As they announced the winner I considered exactly how much say I have had in this government since I was 18, and the answer is not one 'H' of a lot. Neither party has put anyone I wanted in office forward since the 72 election. I finally figured out the best way to explain it.

Picture your daughter is supposed to get married. When it comes time, you find out two groups, the idiots and the thieves have decided who would be best. The problem is, forty percent of your family are thieves, and 40 percent are idiots, and they say they have the right to decide who she will marry. When you say otherwise, they tell you it's a family decision, not something you are qualified to decide on your own, and as much as they hate each other, both groups agree on that.

Now comes the hard part; there are twenty people in the middle who aren't thieves or idiots. They don't agree with either of them, but now the arm twisting and convincing begins. The idiots and thieves start talking to all of those in the middle. They say, 'if you agree with them, it let's another thief into the family' or 'don't we already have enough idiots?". Or the classic 'If you don't vote for us, you're wasting your vote'.

Does it matter at this point who wins? No, because as that one of a hundred, you didn't have an honest say.

So hail to the chief, whoever he turns out to be.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-05-2008, 12:53 AM
dont care my state decriminalized marijuana today that trumps everything negative nancy

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 12:53 AM
It's already decided. You're a little late.

knight 12167
11-05-2008, 01:03 AM
Politics...

* points at forum name * ~tk

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 01:04 AM
dont care my state decriminalized marijuana today that trumps everything negative nancy

Damn straight.

_EW_

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 01:09 AM
In a nation of 300 million, no electoral process will give you a say. Communism will neither give you a say, nor would anarchy give you a say.

In a world with 6+ billion people, you, I, and each individual on this forum and across the globe, we amount to a bunch of petty insignificant things. You "want your voice heard"? Never join a group of people larger than your singular self. Any group larger than yourself poses an increased probability that you will not have your voice heard.

So if you want a political process, don't tell me your voice needs to be heard, but it won't, and thinking otherwise, is foolish.

urluckyday
11-05-2008, 01:36 AM
Who cares George Bush is no longer the president as of January 20th, and that is the biggest lost today...and I'm not kidding or joking in any way. GWB > Obama and/or McCain.

The Doctor
11-05-2008, 01:46 AM
Wow, I thought Bush supporters were a myth.

True_Avery
11-05-2008, 01:51 AM
Wow, I thought Bush supporters were a myth.
They are sort of a rarity nowadays considering Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in history.

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 02:05 AM
They are sort of a rarity nowadays considering Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in history.

Well, at least he'll be remembered for something.

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 02:16 AM
Hey, if history really does vindicate Castro, Bush should look like Solomon with hindsight.

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 02:21 AM
Hey, if history really does vindicate Castro, Bush should look like Solomon with hindsight.

Hindsight is 20/20 ya know. We probably won't be around to find out, but hey, who knows.

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 05:38 AM
Who cares George Bush is no longer the president as of January 20th, and that is the biggest lost today...and I'm not kidding or joking in any way. GWB > Obama and/or McCain.

Could you please explain to me how you could possibly not be joking here?

_EW_

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 05:50 AM
George Bush did once have the highest approval rating of any U.S. President.

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 06:47 AM
George Bush did once have the highest approval rating of any U.S. President.

Yeah, the day after 9/11 when he said we were going to get those terrorists.

Look how that turned out.

_EW_

jrrtoken
11-05-2008, 10:35 AM
Obama has now won; soon America will become an authoritarian, communist state...



...and I've never been happier. :D

machievelli
11-05-2008, 10:47 AM
Wow, I thought Bush supporters were a myth.

I didn't support Bush, Doc. I haven't seen a man worth voting for in the American Political systems since Roosevelt-

Theodore Roosevelt.

Nedak
11-05-2008, 01:06 PM
The electoral system is stupid..Doesn't make any sense.

I didn't support Bush, Doc. I haven't seen a man worth voting for in the American Political systems since Roosevelt-

Theodore Roosevelt.

No on Jack Kennedy, AND FDR?

Obama has now won; soon America will become an authoritarian, communist state...



...and I've never been happier.
People who say Obama will spread communism are very foolish, and driven by propaganda.

Tommycat
11-05-2008, 01:29 PM
Gotta say I really didn't want either of them. Admittedly though, I was starting to like Obama more than McCain towards the end there. I stopped caring about the presidential vote and wrote in Popeye... I did vote on the initiatives though. Neither of them deserved my vote, and I really didn't have a third party candidate I wanted either. I wouldn't go so far as saying Obama is an idiot. Then again by comparison to how Bush comes across(note: Bush is a pretty smart person, but comes across as an idiot)........

Oh well. Lets hope things go well for the next 4 years. I have a bad feeling about it because the Democratic party now controls congress and the White House. But maybe the internet forums will become a more friendly place for a while.

The Doctor
11-05-2008, 02:50 PM
I didn't support Bush, Doc. I haven't seen a man worth voting for in the American Political systems since Roosevelt-

Theodore Roosevelt.

Apologies. I was not referring to you, but the poster above me who clearly (for some reason that I will never understand) is a supporter of Bush.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 02:11 AM
"In a nation of 300 million, no electoral process will give you a say. Communism will neither give you a say, nor would anarchy give you a say.

In a world with 6+ billion people, you, I, and each individual on this forum and across the globe, we amount to a bunch of petty insignificant things. You "want your voice heard"? Never join a group of people larger than your singular self. Any group larger than yourself poses an increased probability that you will not have your voice heard.

So if you want a political process, don't tell me your voice needs to be heard, but it won't, and thinking otherwise, is foolish."

In the 1760s the British thought they had full control, they had the army on their side, the government was all theirs, but we beat them anyway. What we need to do is convince this group of idiots that they can't control us unless we let them control us


The electoral system is stupid..Doesn't make any sense.



No on Jack Kennedy, AND FDR?


People who say Obama will spread communism are very foolish, and driven by propaganda.

FDR is the one who gave us a Federal Income Tax as an 'emergency measure' that has never been rescinded. He also got us unnecessarily into WWII. (Oh, BTW, before you challenge this, you had better have all of your historical ducks in a row, I do)

As for Jack Kennedy, while he backed the Russians down, his racial policies were not far from the KKK. He spent his adminstration with Bobby Kennedy and Hoover attempting time and again to prove that any of the civil rights activists, Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were communist funded.

Admitedly he did try to get us out of Vietnam, which led to his assassination.

As for Obama pushing us into Communism, the Republicans have always been known for supporting a smaller government and free enterprise, which causes problems. But the Democrats have always leaned toward big government and being 'protective' of us, whether we want to be protected or not.

The Civil Rights bill, pushed through by the Republican house under Kennedy was finally signed by Johnson, who took all the credit. Just as CLinton took credit for the Welfare reform bill of 1998 when it reduced the welfare recipients in the US.

Q
11-06-2008, 02:22 AM
FDR is the one who gave us a Federal Income Tax as an 'emergency measure' that has never been rescinded. He also got us unnecessarily into WWII. (Oh, BTW, before you challenge this, you had better have all of your historical ducks in a row, I do)
Care to expand on the latter statement, Mach? Not exactly a challenge per se, but I like to hear what you think on this particular subject. Are you referring to the Atlantic Charter, Lend-Lease or cutting off Japan's oil and freezing her assets in an effort to convince her to stop her aggression against China? Or do you think that transferring the US Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii was a "Here, kitty kitty" move to provoke Japan into attacking us?

machievelli
11-06-2008, 02:54 AM
Care to expand on the latter statement, Mach? Not exactly a challenge per se, but I like to hear what you think on this particular subject. Are you referring to the Atlantic Charter, Lend-Lease or cutting off Japan's oil and freezing her assets in an effort to convince her to stop her aggression against China? Or do you think that transferring the US Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii was a "Here, kitty kitty" move to provoke Japan into attacking us?

Try all of the above. Under International law, signing an assistance pact with a belligerent in a war is defined as just under a declaration of war. You have actively sided in the war. Under the North Atlantic Treaty, the US extended their national waters first 200 miles from the coat, then to halfway across the atlantic, then to a line just east of Iceland. British ships in the 'Neutrality ZOne' were escorted by US Warships, a clear violation of International law.

When the USS Greer prosecuted an attack assisting a British flying boat in what was then international waters we stepped over the line because we are a neutral attacking a belligerent in what was still defined as international waters. The German U- boat commander fired one torpedo at the ship, but only close enough to warn him to back off. Roosevelt tried to skew the facts, claiming that the Germans had struck without warning, but enough men knew what had really happened to stop the propoganda from working.

Also, the ships chosen for lend lease were chosen with malice aforethought, because the escort vessels with American flags were of the same class, causing the sinking of the Rueben James and the attack and damaging of USS Kearny. Again, the spin doctors who worked for Roosevelt tried to make this an unprovoked attack.

When that did not work, the US instead turned their eyes to the Pacific. First they moved the fleet to Pearl Harbor, but at the same time, left the fleet train (The necessary supply ships the fleet needed to operate for an extended period) in San Francisco. Even if the fleet had not been shattered at Pearl, they would have been unable to follow the accepted Mahan Doctrine, which was to face the Japanese east of the Phillipines.

Also, while Magic (The breaking of the Japanese diplomatic codes) operated out of Washington, there was a curious vacuum. There were copies of the machines in Canada, London, Singapore, the Phillipines, and Washington, but none were sent to Pearl Harbor. The men who were part of the secret included the Chief of Staff of the Army, CNO of the Navy, and the officers in charge of war plans for the US Military, yet none of these men, all of whom were required under military law to keep field commanders informed mentioned the fact that the Japanese Legation in Pearl had gotten orders starting in June of 1941 to track all ship movement in Pearl. That order, starting at once a month (Average for a non-belligerent) went to one a week, and starting in November went to first every other, then every day.

Everyone points at the famous war warning, but it told the commanders at Pearl that the US expected attacks agains Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and the Phillipines, 6,000 miles away.

Last, after Pearl, the men in charge were relieved without allowing them a court of inquiry. Under Military law, replacement implies incompetence, yet no court martials were ever convened. FInally in 1946, the government held joint sub-committee meetings investigating the attack. At that time, Retired Admiral Stark under questioning stated that he did not inform Pearl Harbor of the attack because he had orders not to.

Odd. You see, the Secretary of the Navy is not in the chain of command. His job is as a supply officer, making sure they get the weapons and ships they need. Only one man had that authority.

Take a wild guess who that was.

Achilles
11-06-2008, 03:30 AM
The electoral system is stupid..Doesn't make any sense.Response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_VQ8I7g6I)

Web Rider
11-06-2008, 04:16 AM
In the 1760s the British thought they had full control, they had the army on their side, the government was all theirs, but we beat them anyway. What we need to do is convince this group of idiots that they can't control us unless we let them control us

That has nothing to do with anything. The increasing probability that your voice will not be heard stems from the fact that there are a greater number of voices to be heard than ears to hear them. Even if each ear on a person could hear a seperate opinion at a time, taking our current system into account, using Congressmen/women and the President+VP, that would only allow you around a thousand voices to be heard at any one time.

Also, just like education, the amount they actually LISTEN to those voices dwindles after a certain amount of time. See the backward bending curve of labor for an idea how this works. Eventually, even if they COULD listen 24 hours a day for an entire week, the length of an opinion varries, if at best we assume they can hear one per ear per hour, that would only be around 336000 opinions. Which is a lot, but clearly nowhere near all of the voices in the US, and it's highly improbable that anyone could listen to 24 hours straight of opinions

What makes the situation worse, is that many people, most in fact, yourself included, make the determination that their voice was heard by the person they told it to acting in a positive manner for it. Because clearly, you(hypothetical you), and he and we and they, all think our voices are correct, hence why we care that they hear our voice. So, regardless of how many voices a person can hear in any given amount of time, what determines if our voice was heard is not listening, but rather if it was acted upon in a manner we could consider to be heard, ie: a manner that is pro-our opinion.

So, what you're saying is not "my voice, your voice, our voice" doesn't get heard, what you're saying is that my voice doesn't get acted upon in the manner I feel it should.

And given the number of voices, the time it would take to REALLY listen to all of them, and the probability that whoever heard it would be able to act on it in the manner you so desire, it reduces the probability that you voice will be heard to pretty near nil.

So, once more I refer back to my original statement:


That any group larger than yourself poses an increased probability that your voice will not be heard. So the only way for your voice to be heard and acted upon, is for you to be the only one hearing it.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 01:19 PM
"In a nation of 300 million, no electoral process will give you a say. Communism will neither give you a say, nor would anarchy give you a say.This is true.

As for Jack Kennedy, while he backed the Russians down, his racial policies were not far from the KKK. He spent his adminstration with Bobby Kennedy and Hoover attempting time and again to prove that any of the civil rights activists, Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were communist funded.
I did not see documents on this in the research I did on the Civil Rights act and MLK, although J. Edgar Hoover certainly had a lot of surveillance on both men. I did not see any documents that LBJ wrote on or about MLK that indicated he thought MLK was a communist, even after MLK spoke out against the Vietnam war in '65. However, I was looking more at the Civil Rights act issues so it's possible that there was something I missed going through all the documents that I did.
The Civil Rights bill, pushed through by the Republican house under Kennedy
Kennedy had already died by the time the bill was passed in the House. It was Johnson's support of the bill (and I'm sure helped in no part by wanting to do anything that JFK had started) that got it through the rules committee and onto the floor of the House for the vote.

was finally signed by Johnson, who took all the credit.After Johnson strong-armed it through the Senate, which he does deserve full credit for. I saw the internal documents at the Johnson Library between Johnson and various Senators, and the work both he and his aides did on civil rights issues, and they put in a tremendous effort, far more than Kennedy had. Kennedy deserves credit for making Civil Rights an important issue in his administration, but Johnson deserves the lion's share of the credit for actually getting it signed into law. If Johnson had not wielded his enormous influence built up from his time as Senate Majority leader on the Senate to force cloture of the 2 month filibuster, the bill would have died on the Senate floor and the substitute bill that did pass never would have even been heard. Johnson called in a TON of favors to get the filibuster stopped and then to get the bill passed, favors that he'd built up over time as a Senator. I don't know if JFK would have been able to accomplish what Johnson did, certainly not as quickly because he did not have the same clout in the Senate that Johnson had.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 01:52 PM
Web, I never said one voice had to be heard. Only that with everything divided between two piles of disconnected cells (The political parties are after all made up of a hundred or so special interest groups) that telling the 20 percent who are not of one of those groups we have no say. By banding together, you gain the political power, but not even the most ardent democrat could accept everything their party wants them to espouse. Not and be sane in clinical terms.

I never said any president hasn't done some good work, Jae. But the Justice department and FBI do not go off investigating unless ordered to. Justice is under both the President and Attorney General, the Kennedy boys in this case. Hoover spent the Kennedy years looking for links that never existed. If you don't believe this consider this, it was the Clinton White house that had the Justice department actively supporting civil suits blaming gun manufacturers for violent crime. In one case (A man who was in the midst of a diviorce in Texas) where the man's ex filed a restraining order, and when he went to pick up the gun the police had been ordered to arrest him as a criminal.

During the trial, the defense stated he had ordered the gun over a week before the divorce was filed and a restraining order is common practice in divorces. Yet the Prosecutor claimed the order implied intent to commit murder.

At one point the defense commented that the second amendment gave him the right to have the gun if he had not yet committed a crime and the Prosecution claimed that is not what the amendment means. When the judge asked if he implied the constitution did not allow the average citizen a weapon he stated that the government's stand was on the gun control lobby's 'militia means national guard or army, not the average citizen'.

It was the same attitude (That came to the fore under his administration) which started law suits blaming the tobacco industry for people smoking.

The argument made no sense to me because I started smoking for the same reason most men my age did. It was cool. There was no subliminal advertising involved.

Note that one of the first thing the Justice department under Bush did was review the wording on the 2nd and stated that the wording of the section is clearly giving the rights to the average citizen. Since Madison was the framer of the section, you should read the Federalist papers where he clearly states that a militia could stop the army that did not yet exist from enforcing the Government's decrees.

Oh, and if Johnson was trying to finish Jack's good works, why did he spend two years arranging the Tonkin Gulf incident so he could increase the men in Vietnam?

Last point, I wrote articles a few years back about how to fix both the tax and political system, both of which would require grass roots movements to do so. Anyone interested?

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 02:19 PM
I never said any president hasn't done some good work, Jae.
I was clearing up misunderstandings about the Civil Rights act and LBJ's work on it, mach, since that's one area I spent a lot of time doing primary research on--enough to make it a master's thesis if I decide to finish off the history PhD I started before deciding to do the eye doctor thing. My argument is that LBJ rightly should claim credit for the CR act of '64.


But the Justice department and FBI do not go off investigating unless ordered to. Justice is under both the President and Attorney General, the Kennedy boys in this case. Hoover spent the Kennedy years looking for links that never existed.I don't doubt for a moment that Hoover was looking for any possible dirty stuff he could find, communist or otherwise, because Hoover had broad-reaching and unfettered (for the most part) power to do whatever he wanted surveillance-wise. That man had more dirt in one file cabinet than could be found in the soil of an entire acre.


If you don't believe this consider this, it was the Clinton White house that had the Justice department actively supporting civil suits blaming gun manufacturers for violent crimeHoover died in '72, long before Clinton stepped up as President, and some of the power of the FBI was cut down to size after Hoover died, so I'm not sure what the Clinton case has to do with Hoover and MLK.

Oh, and if Johnson was trying to finish Jack's good works, why did he spend two years arranging the Tonkin Gulf incident so he could increase the men in Vietnam?A lot of people loved JFK so much that they wanted to finish whatever he had started before his assassination, and I think there was some influence of "JFK started civil rights legislation, we should work on it in honor of him" on moving the legislation along--I never said that LBJ decided to go with it specifically to honor JFK. LBJ was shrewd--in his memoirs he said he supported the Civil Rights Act because he thought it was the right thing to do to give blacks the right to vote. I think it was more a combination of a. preventing further mass social unrest and b. recognition that the Democratic party would directly benefit from enfranchising 12% of the American population, even if it lost a lot of Southern white Democrats initially. LBJ's decision to ramp up our presence in 'Nam was a different issue altogether from Civil Rights laws anyway.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Hoover died in '72, long before Clinton stepped up as President, and some of the power of the FBI was cut down to size after Hoover died, so I'm not sure what the Clinton case has to do with Hoover and MLK.

I am pointing out that as I said the President and Attorney General give the FBI their marching orders. The order to 'allow' civil suits against gun manufacturers was passed from the White House to Reno, then to Justice.


A lot of people loved JFK so much that they wanted to finish whatever he had started before his assassination, and I think there was some influence of "JFK started civil rights legislation, we should work on it in honor of him" on moving the legislation along--I never said that LBJ decided to go with it specifically to honor JFK. LBJ was shrewd--in his memoirs he said he supported the Civil Rights Act because he thought it was the right thing to do to give blacks the right to vote. I think it was more a combination of a. preventing further mass social unrest and b. recognition that the Democratic party would directly benefit from enfranchising 12% of the American population, even if it lost a lot of Southern white Democrats initially. LBJ's decision to ramp up our presence in 'Nam was a different issue altogether from Civil Rights laws anyway.

It is a common belief that the 12% in question could not vote, that is not true. The south did create 'poll' taxes, true, but they had been judged unconstitutional countless times. All the Civil Rights amendment did was force those states to stop using anything based on racial bias as a bar. As for how they began, they did not begin right after the War between the States.

Oddly enough they all began when President Wilson removed the right for a black man to work in government service in whatever position he was qualified for.

I am not blaming everything on Hoover, though there is enough filth that is his fault. It is a matter of political fact that when the Dems are in charge, they push for more control of the citizens.

mimartin
11-06-2008, 03:07 PM
It was the same attitude (That came to the fore under his administration) which started law suits blaming the tobacco industry for people smoking. I for one am all for personal responsibility for one's actions, but when the game purposely rigged against you them there should be repercussions. Tobacco companies lied about the health hazards of smoking by hiding research and outright lying about research as internal industry memos show. The fought every attempt to regulate the industry, so should they not be responsible too.

I agree with you about guns, unless the manufactures are doing things to make their guns more available to criminals. However, on Tobacco the industry got off easy IMO.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 04:05 PM
I for one am all for personal responsibility for one's actions, but when the game purposely rigged against you them there should be repercussions. Tobacco companies lied about the health hazards of smoking by hiding research and outright lying about research as internal industry memos show. The fought every attempt to regulate the industry, so should they not be responsible too.

I agree with you about guns, unless the manufactures are doing things to make their guns more available to criminals. However, on Tobacco the industry got off easy IMO.

Yet that same industry removed ads for any magazine that was not already considered adult, and voluntarily placed warning labels onj tobacco products, all on their own. While the government was quite willing to blame them for everything it still comes to personal responsibility. I smoke because I want to. If I die from it, that was my form of suicide.

It's like the woman and the coffee from MacDonald's back in the late 70s. If I put a cup of hot liquid between my legs as I am driving, it is not the fault of the place I bought it from if it spills.

Right after the first such lawsuit was filed against the gun companies, I joked with a friend at the Renaissance fair that maybe we should sue the Automobile industry because they supplied the vehicles that killed so many on the roads due to drunk drivers. He is one of those people that stays in character regardless, but he grabbed me by the arm, pulled me into a back stage area, and told me never to even think about it. He told me that as a lawyer he knew some idiot would file the suit, some lawyer would accept it, a judge would allow it to be heard, and if they got the right jury, they would agree that every person killed by a drunk driver was automatically the fault of GM.

The problem is, such suits cannot be filed without the government actively aiding them. Either at the judge level or at the actual Justice department level. Primarily because smoking drinking and owning firearms is something we can do if we wish, and cannot be stopped by legislation. The one time they did legislate such a thing, the Volstead Act (Prohibition) caused the rise of modern organized crime.

mimartin
11-06-2008, 04:10 PM
I agree. However, when you hide facts and lie about facts so that your consumer is purposely misinformed, then you do bare some of the responsibility.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 04:39 PM
I agree. However, when you hide facts and lie about facts so that your consumer is purposely misinformed, then you do bare some of the responsibility.
Agreed. I never said they didn't deserve it, but assigning punitive damages equal to fifteen year of production of every product the combined conglomerates make (only 10 percent of which is tobacco linked) is a bit much. M iller brewing as an example is owned by Phillip Morris.

Last point, I wrote articles a few years back about how to fix both the tax and political system, both of which would require grass roots movements to do so. Anyone interested?

Nedak
11-06-2008, 08:01 PM
Response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_VQ8I7g6I)

I didn't mean that I don't understand it.

I meant that I think it's stupid that it's based off of "electoral votes" rather then popular votes.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 08:54 PM
I didn't mean that I don't understand it.

I meant that I think it's stupid that it's based off of "electoral votes" rather then popular votes.
That is because the Electoral college is based on the same representation as they have in the Congress and Senate.
From my own article on how to fix the political system:
In the 1824 election, the winner didn't have the 51% (He had 47) he needed. Instead the vote went to Congress. The Congress of that time was heavily democratic (Actually Called the Republican-Democrats) still, and threw the votes to John Quincy Adams, who had barely 27% of the popular vote. When the vote was taken the RDs had 62 percent of both the house and senate, but after 20 Jan would have been for the front runner. But according to Federal law, the seated body votes, not the new one.

In 1876, we had the biggest problem thanks to the Electoral College. The popular vote went to one man, but the Electoral College went to the other. (Sound familiar?). But no one fixed the problem.

That second time was actually rigged. What had happened was this; the Democrats (In control of the South) had literally forced the vote, since the Blacks had been threatened into staying away from the polls. This required that the Federal government send in troops to try to get an honest vote which came close to causing riots throughtout the south. To save the situation, and avoid another War Between the States, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to have the second runner Rutherford B Hayes take office instead.

Before you scream, the Democrats lost control of the South in 1948 when Strom Thurmond (At that time a Democrat) ran on a Racially biased ticket closer to the Apartheid policies of South Africa of the same era under the Dixie-crat party.

Achilles
11-06-2008, 09:13 PM
I didn't mean that I don't understand it.

I meant that I think it's stupid that it's based off of "electoral votes" rather then popular votes.Oh, well then that's a matter of opinion rather than a statement of fact.

I personally think trying to accurately track a national popular vote would be a nightmare (I can't fathom a system with more complexity being less susceptible to corruption than the one we currently have).

But of course this all assumes that there is a great big glaring problem with the current system.

machievelli
11-06-2008, 10:48 PM
Oh, well then that's a matter of opinion rather than a statement of fact.

I personally think trying to accurately track a national popular vote would be a nightmare (I can't fathom a system with more complexity being less susceptible to corruption than the one we currently have).

But of course this all assumes that there is a great big glaring problem with the current system.

And you think there is nothing wrong with it?

Achilles
11-06-2008, 10:56 PM
And you think there is nothing wrong with it?Please go back and read the part between the first sentence and the last sentence. Thanks.

Tommycat
11-06-2008, 10:59 PM
I can't believe that Achilles and I are in agreement.

It isn't perfect, but it is better than a purely popular vote...

machievelli
11-06-2008, 11:10 PM
Please go back and read the part between the first sentence and the last sentence. Thanks. I stand corrected. But it can be done better.

Achilles
11-06-2008, 11:17 PM
No system is perfect. Simply pointing out that something has flaws is not sufficient.

On the other hand, I think if there is a better system we would be foolish not to consider it.

Nedak
11-07-2008, 01:23 AM
That is because the Electoral college is based on the same representation as they have in the Congress and Senate.
From my own article on how to fix the political system:
In the 1824 election, the winner didn't have the 51% (He had 47) he needed. Instead the vote went to Congress. The Congress of that time was heavily democratic (Actually Called the Republican-Democrats) still, and threw the votes to John Quincy Adams, who had barely 27% of the popular vote. When the vote was taken the RDs had 62 percent of both the house and senate, but after 20 Jan would have been for the front runner. But according to Federal law, the seated body votes, not the new one.

In 1876, we had the biggest problem thanks to the Electoral College. The popular vote went to one man, but the Electoral College went to the other. (Sound familiar?). But no one fixed the problem.

That second time was actually rigged. What had happened was this; the Democrats (In control of the South) had literally forced the vote, since the Blacks had been threatened into staying away from the polls. This required that the Federal government send in troops to try to get an honest vote which came close to causing riots throughtout the south. To save the situation, and avoid another War Between the States, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to have the second runner Rutherford B Hayes take office instead.

Before you scream, the Democrats lost control of the South in 1948 when Strom Thurmond (At that time a Democrat) ran on a Racially biased ticket closer to the Apartheid policies of South Africa of the same era under the Dixie-crat party.

Thank you for explaining all of that.

I hope some day we figure out how to get officals to change the electoral system

machievelli
11-07-2008, 02:45 AM
No system is perfect. Simply pointing out that something has flaws is not sufficient.

On the other hand, I think if there is a better system we would be foolish not to consider it.

In the present system, all of the electoral votes of a state go to whoever is the front runner in that state. My suggestion in my own how to fix this is to divide up all of them by the proper percentages rather than merely throwing an entire state to them. As someone who lived in California for that election I was appalled to discover that all 57 votes went to a man I had not voted for. While the other side can't complain about being properly represented when 31 out of 55 electoral votes for California were theirs.

Second remove the 'college' aspect. No group of men who are chosen to vote throwing it for their own political ends as happened in 1824.
As it stand a party can take just 12 states;
55 California
34 Texas
31 New York
27 FLorida
21Pennsylvania
21 Illinois
20 Ohio
17 Michigan
15 New Jersey
15 Georgia
and one worth 4 or more to win the election.

Worse yet, all they need to do is win 51% of these states to do so. Less than half the population wagging the entire dog.

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 02:55 AM
In the present system, all of the electoral votes of a state go to whoever is the front runner in that state. My suggestion in my own how to fix this is to divide up all of them by the proper percentages rather than merely throwing an entire state to them. As someone who lived in California for that election I was appalled to discover that all 57 votes went to a man I had not voted for. While the other side can't complain about being properly represented when 31 out of 55 electoral votes for California were theirs.

Second remove the 'college' aspect. No group of men who are chosen to vote throwing it for their own political ends as happened in 1824.

I agree that it seems unfair, but unfortunately this has to be decided on at the state level. A state like California or Texas that has so many votes won't want to divide up their votes as such. It is something that you have to petition your state government to change. I would love to see those staets lose some of their power over the presidency. But then again, that is also why it won't happen.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 02:57 AM
In the present system, all of the electoral votes of a state go to whoever is the front runner in that state. My suggestion in my own how to fix this is to divide up all of them by the proper percentages rather than merely throwing an entire state to them. As someone who lived in California for that election I was appalled to discover that all 57 votes went to a man I had not voted for. While the other side can't complain about being properly represented when 31 out of 55 electoral votes for California were theirs. 1) This sure would seem to make things even more prohibitive for third party/independent candidates.

2) Completely ignoring that, I could see this system making every election exactly like the 2000 recount.

3) Isn't this a decision made at the state level? I could've sworn that Kansas and one other state practiced distributive votes. :confused:

My 2 cents.

Second remove the 'college' aspect. No group of men who are chosen to vote throwing it for their own political ends as happened in 1824.At the risk of sounding flippant, "why you gotta bring up old ****?". Any reason to think that the modern Electoral College would have this problem? Or are we simply taking one example from our government's infancy and trying to paint a picture that supports your view at the expense of how things would work today?

ET Warrior
11-07-2008, 03:07 AM
3) Isn't this a decision made at the state level? I could've sworn that Kansas and one other state practiced distributive votes. I don't know about Kansas, but Nebraska does, I am pretty sure 1 of the Nebraska electoral votes is going to Obama.

One of the problems with dividing electoral votes like that is it makes campaigning in low population states useless. Why would a candidate pay any attention to a state like Wyoming when at most they will probably gain or lose 1 electoral vote? All campaign efforts and money would get pumped into states with 10 or more votes to give, and everyone else would just get ignored.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 03:09 AM
At the risk of sounding flippant, "why you gotta bring up old ****?". Any reason to think that the modern Electoral College would have this problem? Or are we simply taking one example from our government's infancy and trying to paint a picture that supports your view at the expense of how things would work today?

In the 1924 example if the congress and senate that was coming into office (62 percent Federalist) had voted it would have gone the other way.

Take this as a modern example, Achilles;

The Dems had 52 percent of the house and 51 in the senate in 2000. With the election this tight, and the demographics of the 2000 senate almost exactly opposite (54 rep in congress and 51 rep in the senate) for those who take their seats on Jan 20 2001, who would have been president if the 'electoral college' voted?

Why do you think neither side even suggested it?

ET Warrior said: 'One of the problems with dividing electoral votes like that is it makes campaigning in low population states useless. Why would a candidate pay any attention to a state like Wyoming when at most they will probably gain or lose 1 electoral vote? All campaign efforts and money would get pumped into states with 10 or more votes to give, and everyone else would just get ignored.'

That is exactly my point. Every state even if only four votes now becomes important

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 03:14 AM
Take this as an example, Achilles;

The Dems had 52 percent of the house and 51 in the senate in 2000. With the election this tight, and the demographics of the 2000 senate almost exactly opposite (54 rep in congress and 51 rep in the senate) for those who take their seats on Jan 20 2001, who would have been president if the 'electoral college' voted?

Technically the electoral college still could vote. Heck they could all vote the other way. It is highly unlikely to happen because the people chosen to vote one way or another are chosen for their dedication.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 03:22 AM
I don't know about Kansas, but Nebraska does, I am pretty sure 1 of the Nebraska electoral votes is going to Obama.

One of the problems with dividing electoral votes like that is it makes campaigning in low population states useless. Why would a candidate pay any attention to a state like Wyoming when at most they will probably gain or lose 1 electoral vote? All campaign efforts and money would get pumped into states with 10 or more votes to give, and everyone else would just get ignored.

In my above example the states mentioned are 266 electoral votes. Yet if they got the 51% I mentioned using the divided electoral votes, it would only be 136, requiring support in more states.

Technically the electoral college still could vote. Heck they could all vote the other way. It is highly unlikely to happen because the people chosen to vote one way or another are chosen for their dedication.

The electoral college is the house and senate Nothing more. So it falls back to which party is in charge in office at that moment as to who wins.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 03:34 AM
The Dems had 52 percent of the house and 51 in the senate in 2000. With the election this tight, and the demographics of the 2000 senate almost exactly opposite (54 rep in congress and 51 rep in the senate) for those who take their seats on Jan 20 2001, who would have been president if the 'electoral college' voted?

Why do you think neither side even suggested it?You appear to be confirming my perspective. It didn't happen because the modern electoral college doesn't operate the way you are suggesting that it does. The electoral college votes based on the popular vote of their constituencies. Hence why the scenario above didn't happen and why it wasn't suggested.

The election came down to Florida and Florida was undecided.

ET Warrior said: 'One of the problems with dividing electoral votes like that is it makes campaigning in low population states useless. Why would a candidate pay any attention to a state like Wyoming when at most they will probably gain or lose 1 electoral vote? All campaign efforts and money would get pumped into states with 10 or more votes to give, and everyone else would just get ignored.'

That is exactly my point. Every state even if only four votes now becomes importantExcept that it doesn't. No candidate is going to campaign hard in a state where they are only going to 1 (maybe 2) votes. Big states would be awash in campaign dollars while Ralph Nader's animated corpse stumps 6 months out of the year in the Big Sky states.

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 03:51 AM
The electoral college is the house and senate Nothing more. So it falls back to which party is in charge in office at that moment as to who wins.
Negative. The number of electoral college members are determined by the number of representatives and senators, but the actual college members are different people.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 03:51 AM
You appear to be confirming my perspective. It didn't happen because the modern electoral college doesn't operate the way you are suggesting that it does. The electoral college votes based on the popular vote of their constituencies. Hence why the scenario above didn't happen and why it wasn't suggested.

The election came down to Florida and Florida was undecided.


The parties did not want to risk what happened again, that is why it did not go to the electoral college. Read the Wikipedia article about how the college operates if you don't believe me.

As for Florida, the difference when they called for a recount was one half of one percent, but the way it was done organized and blocked were all based on party politics.

The Florida Supreme Court has 15 members, fourteen dem one independant, so of course they agreed to the recount, and allowed the democrats to set the method, using only four counties. The fact that those four are the main democratic strongholds is of course incidental.

When the necessary votes did not appear, the Florida Supreme court decided to set aside Florida law in aid of the party. Under Florida ELection Law, a chad counts as a vote only if it is hanging by one corner. They changed it to the RUles in Texas where if two corners are loose it counts. At that point the Federal Supreme Court rescinded the Florida decision.

Then the Florida court again ordered they could recount, this time using the California 'Dimpled Chad' ruling. Again the Federal Court stopped the recount.

All of those decisions were politicall motivated except for the first Federal Supreme court decision, because they stated in their decision you cannot change a state law to match another state's for your own convenience.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 03:56 AM
Negative. The number of electoral college members are determined by the number of representatives and senators, but the actual college members are different people.

'Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives'

Quote from the wikipedia. If I need the Encyclopedia Brittanica, I'll get it.

That is 270 electoral votes. The primary reason the parties don't want competition

Web Rider
11-07-2008, 04:01 AM
No matter how you reformat the system, the basic concept is that you need a majority of the voters to win. It doesn't matter if there are electoral votes in the middle or anything else.

Candidates will go where the population is, New York, Florida, California, ect... Regardless of the number of electoral votes, regardless of the sway they have, but simply for the sheer number of people in those locations.

South Dakota, with a population of only a fraction more than Kern County in California(750k ish, to 700kish), is unimportant. If you with the population in California, you've made up for what you lost in SD in spades.

Maybe you could solve this with a proportional representation system and allow people to vote for several people, but that's STILL going to leave bigger locations with more sway than smaller locations.

The whole reason our two-house system was developed to give BIG states more say because there are more people there. Why should Wyoming have an equal say as California, clearly they are not equal states.

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 04:01 AM
The parties did not want to risk what happened again, that is why it did not go to the electoral college. Read the Wikipedia article about how the college operates if you don't believe me.
So Sayeth Wiki:
Some nations with complex regional electorates elect a head of state by means of an electoral college rather than a direct popular election. The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president, with an electoral college comprising electors representing the 50 states and one federal district. Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation (in both houses), with the non-state District of Columbia receiving three electors and other non-state territories having no electors. The electors generally cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states, but are not required by law to do so.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 04:02 AM
The electoral college is the house and senate Nothing more.
'Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives' Cookies for the first person that spots the contradiction.

Also, machievelli, please tone it down with the ninja edits.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 04:05 AM
No matter how you reformat the system, the basic concept is that you need a majority of the voters to win. It doesn't matter if there are electoral votes in the middle or anything else.

Candidates will go where the population is, New York, Florida, California, ect... Regardless of the number of electoral votes, regardless of the sway they have, but simply for the sheer number of people in those locations.

South Dakota, with a population of only a fraction more than Kern County in California(750k ish, to 700kish), is unimportant. If you with the population in California, you've made up for what you lost in SD in spades.

Maybe you could solve this with a proportional representation system and allow people to vote for several people, but that's STILL going to leave bigger locations with more sway than smaller locations.

The whole reason our two-house system was developed to give BIG states more say because there are more people there. Why should Wyoming have an equal say as California, clearly they are not equal states.

I agree the majority must rule, but the idea that 43 percdent of Californians are ignored because of the electoral college rules bothers me. I did not vote for GOreor Kerry yet according to the electoral college I did.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 04:07 AM
Cookies for the first person that spots the contradiction.

Also, machievelli, please tone it down with the ninja edits.
Sorry, I wrote it and needed to edit. sorry.

I choose Macadamia nut. The electoral colllege is counted as another body, only falling to the congress when there is no clear majority.

My bad

Achilles
11-07-2008, 04:08 AM
I agree the majority must rule, but the idea that 43 percdent of Californians are ignored because of the electoral college rules bothers me. I did not vote for GOreor Kerry yet according to the electoral college I did.Translation: I agree with majority rule but I don't agree with majority rule because majority rule means that the minority candidate (i.e. the guy I voted for) doesn't win.

Hint: that is majority rule.

Sorry, I wrote it and needed to edit. sorry.

I choose Macadamia nut. The electoral colllege is counted as another body, only falling to the congress when there is no clear majority.

My badThe contradiction is that you first said that the House was electoral college and then you said that the vote went to the House if a majority could not be reached. Unless you're arguing that the House essentially gets to vote twice, there is a problem with one of these statements.

And my quick, one sentence response to your lengthy post about Florida, which entirely missed the point: Neither party had a clear majority because the popular vote was undetermined and therefore the electoral votes could not be assigned.

machievelli
11-07-2008, 04:33 AM
Translation: I agree with majority rule but I don't agree with majority rule because majority rule means that the minority candidate (i.e. the guy I voted for) doesn't win.

Hint: that is majority rule.

The contradiction is that you first said that the House was electoral college and then you said that the vote went to the House if a majority could not be reached. Unless you're arguing that the House essentially gets to vote twice, there is a problem with one of these statements.

And my quick, one sentence response to your lengthy post about Florida, which entirely missed the point: Neither party had a clear majority because the popular vote was undetermined and therefore the electoral votes could not be assigned.

Actually as a test for myself, I did the figures after the federal election of 200 I broke down the electoral votes as I suggested. It turned out that Bush would have won by exactly one vote. A lote better than the 4 of the normal one. That is what I want, proper representation.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 04:44 AM
There are 538 of them and you feel better losing by 1 point than 4.

I really think you should stop while you're ahead.

EDIT: btw, ET Warrior and I made (what I feel are) some sound arguments against changing the current system way back in post 45 and 46. Would you mind taking a stab and addressing those in one of your next posts? I think we've allowed ourselves to get distracted by some minutiae whereas getting back to the "meat and potatoes" might allow us to cover more ground. Thanks.

EnderWiggin
11-07-2008, 05:32 AM
I don't know about Kansas, but Nebraska does, I am pretty sure 1 of the Nebraska electoral votes is going to Obama.


The other one is Maine :)

_EW_

Achilles
11-07-2008, 06:05 AM
^^^^

Ah yes. Thanks to you and ET Warrior for the Kansas/Nebraska correction. I was trying to visualize the electoral map I saw and was one state off :(

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 11:52 AM
Also, machievelli, please tone it down with the ninja edits.
Just to clarify, only admins have the ability to make edits that won't show a 'last edited by:' notation, and machievelli is not an admin, and therefore does not have that ability. If there's no edit note at the bottom of his posts, he hasn't changed them. However, it would make it a lot easier to follow, machievelli, if when you made a change you made a little note on what you changed (e.g. 'fixed grammar/spelling', or 'clarified a point') so the rest of us can keep up. Thanks.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 01:04 PM
That has nothing to do with what I was asking, but thank you for the reminder.

ET Warrior
11-07-2008, 02:00 PM
I agree the majority must rule, but the idea that 43 percdent of Californians are ignored because of the electoral college rules bothers me. I did not vote for GOreor Kerry yet according to the electoral college I did.And this year 46% of Americans did not vote for Barack Obama but according to the results of the election they did.

Web Rider
11-07-2008, 02:39 PM
I agree the majority must rule, but the idea that 43 percdent of Californians are ignored because of the electoral college rules bothers me. I did not vote for GOreor Kerry yet according to the electoral college I did.

At the same time, those 43% ignored are often made up by ignoring others in other states. Colorado, for example, which is very 50/50, often makes up partly by going republican.

There's a balancing effect here, and no, I don't believe in complete majority rule, just because 51% of the people want something does not mean it's a good thing to have.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Just to clarify, only admins have the ability to make edits that won't show a 'last edited by:' notation, and machievelli is not an admin, and therefore does not have that ability. If there's no edit note at the bottom of his posts, he hasn't changed them. However, it would make it a lot easier to follow, machievelli, if when you made a change you made a little note on what you changed (e.g. 'fixed grammar/spelling', or 'clarified a point') so the rest of us can keep up. Thanks. if you edit your post within a certain amount of time it won't show that it's been edited.

This is true--there's a 10 minute window. I forgot about that. --Jae

Q
11-07-2008, 02:47 PM
Shush! You're not supposed to tell anybody that. I take advantage of it all the time. :p

Achilles
11-07-2008, 03:08 PM
There's a balancing effect here, and no, I don't believe in complete majority rule, just because 51% of the people want something does not mean it's a good thing to have.Another great argument against election by popular vote.

Samuel Dravis
11-07-2008, 03:53 PM
The smallest amount of electoral votes a state has is 3. Washington D.C. has as many electoral votes as the smallest state does.

As it stands with Texas' winner-takes-all rule:

1. I was not represented at all in the state's 34 electoral votes, which means my vote did not affect the presidential election whatsoever;

2. My state was mostly ignored during the campaign.

What I would like is the assignment of electoral voters by percentage of the popular vote here. If Obama got 43.72% of the Texas vote, then he should get ~15 of the electoral voters, and Barr, who got .70%, should get ~2.

What this would do is force candidates to spend time in states that are generally considered to be strongly Republican or Democrat in order to win enough of the electoral vote. It does not remove the electoral college's function on the national level, but it does provide better representation to the people within the state. Although people will still fall through the cracks if they have a very small percentage of votes, it would be better than the winner takes all system. That system literally ignores millions of votes - in this case 3,577,562 plus - and is far too coarse to be called a representative system except in the loosest possible sense.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 03:57 PM
PostResponse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5CpcWIYjFI)

*shrugs*

FWIW, I live in AZ (McCain!!!) and I still voted for Obama.

P.S. Look at how many "red" states went "blue" this election. The reality is that all states are in constant flux.

EDIT: P.P.S. I addressed your other arguments in post 45.

Samuel Dravis
11-07-2008, 04:04 PM
I did vote for the very reason that the video proposed.

Still, that doesn't change the fact of what I said in my previous post. I was not represented when I could have easily been. Why not? Because that's the way it is. I am not happy with the status quo on this subject.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 04:09 PM
Neither was I. And neither was I in the 2004 election. Majority rule is majority rule regardless of how you choose to divvy up the votes. There will always be at least one group that does not get the candidate they want in office.

Samuel Dravis
11-07-2008, 04:15 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not worried about whether or not a single person gets elected to office. However, I am annoyed that the Texas electoral votes which are supposed to represent Texas nationally do not actually represent Texans.

Darth InSidious
11-07-2008, 04:17 PM
On the other hand, I think if there is a better system we would be foolish not to consider it.
Pharaonism ftw!

Achilles
11-07-2008, 04:19 PM
I guess I don't follow how that works. Did some body other than the citizens of Texas give McCain a plurality of the votes in Texas?

If the majority of Texans voted for McCain, then it would seem that the will of majority of Texans was represented.

@DI: :lol:
Don't know how well that will be received here. Some of us have kinda gotten used to the idea of not putting all of our eggs in one basket.

Samuel Dravis
11-07-2008, 04:53 PM
Yes, it does represent the majority of Texans, though it ignores the rest.

Perhaps I just disagree with you in that I think that the will of Texas should not be just the majority of Texans' will. It should be represented on the national stage as the various parties that make up Texans in the percentage that they were voted for.

I say this because the electoral college is what elects the president, not us. The electoral college's voters are, in effect, our proxy voters. If the presidential vote was a true (albeit by proxy) majority vote, then all of the parties of Texas would be reflected in the 34 Electoral college votes. But they're not.

The electoral college's purpose is to make the various state's voting power more equal. It's to keep the big ones like Texas from beating up the small ones like Montana. But that purpose can be fulfilled without putting the state's votes all in one basket. Large voting blocs are easier to deal with, certainly, but not at the cost of ignoring so many people. So what possible justification could there be for forcing all of the electoral votes to go to one party?

Achilles
11-07-2008, 05:15 PM
Yes, it does represent the majority of Texans, though it ignores the rest. But that's the inherent flip-side of any majority rule situation. Even if we went to a straight popular vote election, up to 40.9% of the country will have "their will" ignored at the end of the day. There is no way around this and pushing this from state level to federal level or whatever is just squeezing different ends of the tube of toothpaste, not solving a problem.

Perhaps I just disagree with you in that I think that the will of Texas should not be just the majority of Texans' will. It should be represented on the national stage as the various parties that make up Texans in the percentage that they were voted for. And it's not as though I necessarily disagree with you. As I (and others) have pointed out in other posts, there are multiple reasons why the current system, while imperfect, is still the best one available.

I've been a senior manager in companies with thousands of employees and been directly responsible for hundreds of employees within multiple departments. I have first hand experience with both "trying to make this baby equitable" and "you can't make all the people happy all the time". That's just reality. I can only imagine trying to build a system that actually runs the world's largest democracy.

I say this because the electoral college is what elects the president, not us. While technically accurate, I don't agree that this is actually the case. If it were, the 2000 recount wouldn't have happened. If it were, we wouldn't know who the President-elect is on Tuesday nights. Reality (as I see it) just doesn't seem to fit this argument.

The electoral college's voters are, in effect, our proxy voters. If the presidential vote was a true (albeit by proxy) majority vote, then all of the parties of Texas would be reflected in the 34 Electoral college votes. But they're not. You may have lost me here. I think we're getting hung up on the difference between distributive voting and winner-take-all voting. How those votes are distributed would seem to have very little to do with the electoral college itself.

The electoral college's purpose is to make the various state's voting power more equal. It's to keep the big ones like Texas from beating up the small ones like Montana.Hmm, I think I'm going to have to disagree here. It seems to me that the EC's purpose is to make sure that state's populations are accurately represented. Via that rationale it would be to make sure that small states like Montana aren't given equal weight to big states like Texas. Interesting that you and I have such radically different takes on this point.

But that purpose can be fulfilled without putting the state's votes all in one basket. Large voting blocs are easier to deal with, certainly, but not at the cost of ignoring so many people.Again, this in inherent in any majority rule system. I think it's critical that this point isn't ignored here.

So what possible justification could there be for forcing all of the electoral votes to go to one party?The same argument could be made for giving all of the office to the one guy that won the election. You would have the exact same problem with a straight popular vote as well. I think it helps to remember that we are first and foremost a Republic of States.

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 07:00 PM
Pharaonism ftw!

Well, that certainly would give new meaning to the phrase "I am my brother's keeper."

machievelli
11-07-2008, 07:37 PM
There are 538 of them and you feel better losing by 1 point than 4.

I really think you should stop while you're ahead.

EDIT: btw, ET Warrior and I made (what I feel are) some sound arguments against changing the current system way back in post 45 and 46. Would you mind taking a stab and addressing those in one of your next posts? I think we've allowed ourselves to get distracted by some minutiae whereas getting back to the "meat and potatoes" might allow us to cover more ground. Thanks.

As requested:

1) This sure would seem to make things even more prohibitive for third party/independent candidates.

2) Completely ignoring that, I could see this system making every election exactly like the 2000 recount.

3) Isn't this a decision made at the state level? I could've sworn that Kansas and one other state practiced distributive votes. :confused:


1: In 1996 we had three parties, Dems, Reps, and Reform. The votes were;
Democrats: 47,402,357
Republicans: 39,198,755
Reform: 8,085,402

Using the Electoral votes divided as they are now, it came out as;

Dem:379
Rep:159
Reform: 0

But as I am suggesting:
Dems: 264 (Needed for clear majority 270)
Rep: 219
Reform: 45

While this doesn’t sound like much, figure this: Clinton won with less that 50 percent of the popular vote. He had 49.23%. You can’t pass a law with 49%, but obviously the largest minority can win a campaign.

Under the rules before this election, it would have had to go to the congress because a president had to have 51% of the vote. The 1824 election you keep bewailing because I mentioned it Achilles was 47%. As I said the parties don’t want it to go to the Congress especially in a tie as close as 2000 was.

If the Party hadn’t self destructed when Buchanan cause his mini coup what do you think could have happened?

2: Then it should go to Congress as it should, rather than through that circus they called the recounts.

3: It can be done two ways; by the people in a referendum vote, or by the states, but neither party will want to make this change, it’s too easy.


One of the problems with dividing electoral votes like that is it makes campaigning in low population states useless. Why would a candidate pay any attention to a state like Wyoming when at most they will probably gain or lose 1 electoral vote? All campaign efforts and money would get pumped into states with 10 or more votes to give, and everyone else would just get ignored.

In post 44 I used the following list along with their electoral votes as to how few states are needed to win an election;
55 California
34 Texas
31 New York
27 FLorida
21Pennsylvania
21 Illinois
20 Ohio
17 Michigan
15 New Jersey
15 Georgia
and one worth 4 or more to win the election.

Of course two of them, California and Texas have voted opposite sides of every election since 1948.

In my example in post #44 the states mentioned are 266 electoral votes missing only four to win. Yet if they got the 51% I mentioned using the divided electoral votes, it would only be 136, requiring support in more states. Both McCain and Dole had more than that and lost. That means even Montana can throw the election either way.

As for losing, I do not worry about that as much as being told that 57% automatically takes all. A fair fight is all right, but being robbed irritates me. At the end of that day I know at least some of us were heard.

Oh, and if anyone is interested, one comment I made above was incorrect. If the electoral votes had been devided as I suggest, Gore would have won by 2. Not Bush by one.

But you can't stop there, the power of the parties themselves has to be divided.