Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should the Electoral College system in the USA be; ditched for another system ?
Topic Started: Nov 5 2008, 07:01 AM (909 Views)
Data's Cat's Sister
Member Avatar
Commodore
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 6 2008, 05:01 PM
I believe (and I can't say "I know" because I'm not telepathic) that Scotty was also reacting to Somerled's rather confrontational start to this thread.

He said,

Quote:
 
Should the complex and unweldly Electoral College system be ditched and Presidents elected by a first past the post citisen vote , doing away delegates and superdelegates and the potential corruptness of the existing Electoral College system ?


Right off the bat I also believe that this was intentionally confrontational. My dog (provided she could read, type, and not drool on the keyboard) could probably have written something a bit more neutral... or not.
I'm inclined to agree with you which is why I used the phrase 'speaking for myself'.

However as Scotty is relatively new here I wanted to take the opportunity to ensure that the rest of us are not tarred with the same brush and I wanted to be sure that I disassociated myself from Somerled's confrontational style.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Data's Cat's Sister
Member Avatar
Commodore
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 6 2008, 05:04 PM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 05:02 PM
Data's Cat's Sister
Nov 6 2008, 04:57 PM
Scotty
Nov 6 2008, 04:10 PM
Franko
Nov 5 2008, 08:13 PM
Scotty
Nov 5 2008, 12:39 PM
No. Why ask this when you are a non-US citizen? Last I looked you only can vote if you an American citizen.


Ummm.....cuz they were curious ? Perhaps we should just restrict this forum to US citizens ? Or would you prefer that we from other lands just mind our own business ?


What was your point here, dude ?


My point is, why would someone who is not from the US want to change our political ways of dealing with our votes, being curious is one thing. Trying to change someones way of voting for a leader is another. Do I or anyone ever go onto a forum and tell an English man on how to vote for someone?
Well, speaking for myself, as a foreigner I'm not attempting to change the way you vote. I'm just interested in why you vote and how you vote. I like to compare legislatures and political systems; it's interesting.

Also, more broadly speaking, as America is the worlds only superpower there is no denying that what happens in your country profoundly effects my own. The foreign policy and economic decisions that are made in America effects day to day life in mine and it could even be argued, that it can effect it to a much greater degree then anything that my own Government can do. It would be foolish of me therefore to take no interest in what happens in America and one of the best ways I have of finding that out is from the direct interactions I have with Americans here at this forum.

This is an international forum and I feel free to express my opinion on any thread that is posted here be it about America, Canada or any other country. It is my hope that I always do this with respect and careful thought.

There are threads here about the UK, STC, DS9 and myself often start them. You and all other members of Sistertrek are welcome to comment on them. We may choose to disagree with you but we welcome your opinion.
Don't believe a word she says. She is not mealy interested in how you do things Scott she is intent on world domination and is information gathering.

You didn’t think I would find out did you DCS; was your plan to kill me or would you simply destroy or take over all of my infrastructure and leave me with nothing? I am so disappointed in you, you had such potential.
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
:rotfl: You bunch of nutters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 05:02 PM
Data's Cat's Sister
Nov 6 2008, 04:57 PM
Scotty
Nov 6 2008, 04:10 PM
Franko
Nov 5 2008, 08:13 PM
Scotty
Nov 5 2008, 12:39 PM
No. Why ask this when you are a non-US citizen? Last I looked you only can vote if you an American citizen.


Ummm.....cuz they were curious ? Perhaps we should just restrict this forum to US citizens ? Or would you prefer that we from other lands just mind our own business ?


What was your point here, dude ?


My point is, why would someone who is not from the US want to change our political ways of dealing with our votes, being curious is one thing. Trying to change someones way of voting for a leader is another. Do I or anyone ever go onto a forum and tell an English man on how to vote for someone?
Well, speaking for myself, as a foreigner I'm not attempting to change the way you vote. I'm just interested in why you vote and how you vote. I like to compare legislatures and political systems; it's interesting.


Don't believe a word she says. She is not mealy interested in how you do things Scott she is intent on world domination and is information gathering.

You didn’t think I would find out did you DCS; was your plan to kill me or would you simply destroy or take over all of my infrastructure and leave me with nothing? I am so disappointed in you, you had such potential.
Actually Dan, DCS has already killed you, with my help. The Sistertrek Northern English mafia have eliminated you. You're already dead. It's just that you're in purgatory and haven't realised this yet. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
STC
Nov 6 2008, 05:10 PM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 05:02 PM
Data's Cat's Sister
Nov 6 2008, 04:57 PM
Scotty
Nov 6 2008, 04:10 PM
Franko
Nov 5 2008, 08:13 PM
Scotty
Nov 5 2008, 12:39 PM
No. Why ask this when you are a non-US citizen? Last I looked you only can vote if you an American citizen.


Ummm.....cuz they were curious ? Perhaps we should just restrict this forum to US citizens ? Or would you prefer that we from other lands just mind our own business ?


What was your point here, dude ?


My point is, why would someone who is not from the US want to change our political ways of dealing with our votes, being curious is one thing. Trying to change someones way of voting for a leader is another. Do I or anyone ever go onto a forum and tell an English man on how to vote for someone?
Well, speaking for myself, as a foreigner I'm not attempting to change the way you vote. I'm just interested in why you vote and how you vote. I like to compare legislatures and political systems; it's interesting.


Don't believe a word she says. She is not mealy interested in how you do things Scott she is intent on world domination and is information gathering.

You didn’t think I would find out did you DCS; was your plan to kill me or would you simply destroy or take over all of my infrastructure and leave me with nothing? I am so disappointed in you, you had such potential.
Actually Dan, DCS has already killed you, with my help. The Sistertrek Northern English mafia have eliminated you. You're already dead. It's just that you're in purgatory and haven't realised this yet. ;)
I know DCS had to have baking; she couldn’t accomplish all of this on her own. I trained her well, but not well enough to subvert my self … for as long as she did.

No matter; death is but a door, time is but a window … and you and that deceptive vial creature will be dealt with in due time.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Data's Cat's Sister
Member Avatar
Commodore
We need an off topic emoticon.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 05:02 PM
Don't believe a word she says. She is not mealy interested in how you do things Scott she is intent on world domination and is information gathering.

You didn’t think I would find out did you DCS; was your plan to kill me or would you simply destroy or take over all of my infrastructure and leave me with nothing? I am so disappointed in you, you had such potential.
You mean I'm not the only one who got a wierd vibe from her? I just wrote it off to my being paranoid. I can't explain why, but while I saw "Data's Cat's Sister", my mind was saying me, "Domination, Control, Submission". :scared:














:P

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 11:24 AM
Dr. Noah
Nov 6 2008, 06:56 AM
Let's look at it this way.

Alaska has a population of 670,053 according to the 2006 Census estimate. They have 3 electoral votes. That gives an electoral vote to every 223,351 people in Alaska. Whereas New York state with a population of 19,306,183 and has 31 electoral votes. That gives an electoral vote to every 622,780 people in New York State. Alaska has nearly three times the proportional representation as New York. One electoral vote for nearly the entire population of Alaska in New York.
I saw that , not fair that a people in a small state have proportionally more say than those in a much bigger state .... here we call that :
Gerrymandering (is a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group ) and would be a scandel.
Hopefully I am not repeating what has already been said...

The Alaska has three votes because that is the smallest amount guaranteed under the Constitution. It equals out to the number of Congressional representatives the state has. The minimum number of which is 3, 2 Senators and 1 Representative in the House. No state has more than 2 Senators. The number of Representatives, however, is based on the population of the state. This is why NY has 33 and California has 55.

As has already been stated the purpose of insuring a "weighted" voice to states that are smaller in population is to insure that their voice is heard. Our founders realized that if they did not have this equalizing feature the danger was less that those in smaller states would not show up to vote; rather the concern was that they would secede from the union. Without the "weighted" voice imagine the prospect of several states in the north opting to form their own separate, independent union due to the idea that the national government is only interested in the taxes collected from them and the goods produced by them... Oh, wait! That's pretty much why we had our little revolution in 1776 to start with. We just did not want to have to go through that again; been there, done that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Swidden
Nov 7 2008, 03:58 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 11:24 AM
Dr. Noah
Nov 6 2008, 06:56 AM
Let's look at it this way.

Alaska has a population of 670,053 according to the 2006 Census estimate. They have 3 electoral votes. That gives an electoral vote to every 223,351 people in Alaska. Whereas New York state with a population of 19,306,183 and has 31 electoral votes. That gives an electoral vote to every 622,780 people in New York State. Alaska has nearly three times the proportional representation as New York. One electoral vote for nearly the entire population of Alaska in New York.
I saw that , not fair that a people in a small state have proportionally more say than those in a much bigger state .... here we call that :
Gerrymandering (is a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group ) and would be a scandel.
Hopefully I am not repeating what has already been said...

The Alaska has three votes because that is the smallest amount guaranteed under the Constitution. It equals out to the number of Congressional representatives the state has. The minimum number of which is 3, 2 Senators and 1 Representative in the House. No state has more than 2 Senators. The number of Representatives, however, is based on the population of the state. This is why NY has 33 and California has 55.

As has already been stated the purpose of insuring a "weighted" voice to states that are smaller in population is to insure that their voice is heard. Our founders realized that if they did not have this equalizing feature the danger was less that those in smaller states would not show up to vote; rather the concern was that they would secede from the union. Without the "weighted" voice imagine the prospect of several states in the north opting to form their own separate, independent union due to the idea that the national government is only interested in the taxes collected from them and the goods produced by them... Oh, wait! That's pretty much why we had our little revolution in 1776 to start with. We just did not want to have to go through that again; been there, done that.
To add on to what Swidden just said,

The electoral college was created to ensure we weren't governed by mob rule. It was to enforce that the United States was a REPRESENTATIVE republic.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Scotty
Cadet 4th Year
DCS, I don't mind people from other countries commenting. But when someone comes along and tells you how to vote for your leader is another. I voted McCain, well because I think abortion is wrong and feel that Obama isn't the right man here. Hes too inexpiranced. At least hes not John Kerry. UGH! I am not George Bush he said. The only reason to be President. The majority of this country voted McCain, but he didn't get the big numbers. It shows that McCain was the better man weather he lost. From what I was seeing was a man who wanted to help the country. Don't get me wrong, Obama seems like a nice guy but can he talk the walk? Sorry if I upsetted anyone here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Scotty
Nov 11 2008, 06:38 PM
The majority of this country voted McCain, but he didn't get the big numbers. It shows that McCain was the better man weather he lost.
How do you figure that?

How do you say McCain got the majority vote in the country when the vote count shows he clearly did not?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Mel
Member Avatar
Coffee Lover
Umm, as far as I know, Obama still won the popular vote.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Swidden
Nov 5 2008, 12:33 PM
Data's Cat's Sister
Nov 5 2008, 11:40 AM
Wichita, what modifications do you propose? Would you make a change to a popular first past the post type popular vote or something else?
I don't know what Wichita would suggest but one thing I would recommend is how the electoral votes are alloted. Most, but not all, states are "winner take all". That is, the candidate that wins the state gets all the electoral votes (minimum of 3, equal to the number of congressional representative the state has) of that state. If we made it a proportional allotment, then it is possible that such a win reflect the popular vote more.
If the purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that campaigning in not just concentrated in a few areas it doesnt really work well at present. Yes in theory it protects small states from being overlooked. Thing is as mentioned earlier in the thread there was little campaigning in safe states compared with swing states. So what actually seems to happen is safe states effectively end up getting bypassed under the current system.

If you had a system of proportional allotment across the board then almost no state would be 'safe' and so campaigning would need to be wider.

Only thing I would say about this is that the change would need to be across all states to make it work, so thats a consitutional change needed, but then are you violating states rights to decide how to allocate their electoral votes?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ds9074
Nov 12 2008, 10:11 AM
Swidden
Nov 5 2008, 12:33 PM
Data's Cat's Sister
Nov 5 2008, 11:40 AM
Wichita, what modifications do you propose? Would you make a change to a popular first past the post type popular vote or something else?
I don't know what Wichita would suggest but one thing I would recommend is how the electoral votes are alloted. Most, but not all, states are "winner take all". That is, the candidate that wins the state gets all the electoral votes (minimum of 3, equal to the number of congressional representative the state has) of that state. If we made it a proportional allotment, then it is possible that such a win reflect the popular vote more.
If the purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that campaigning in not just concentrated in a few areas it doesnt really work well at present. Yes in theory it protects small states from being overlooked. Thing is as mentioned earlier in the thread there was little campaigning in safe states compared with swing states. So what actually seems to happen is safe states effectively end up getting bypassed under the current system.

If you had a system of proportional allotment across the board then almost no state would be 'safe' and so campaigning would need to be wider.
I think that we would never get past the idea of safe vs. swing states even with a proportional allotment system. However, I do think that it would mean that the candidates would pay more attention to the possibility of garnering more votes in those safe states that are going in the direction of their opponent just to hopefully have a better chance at getting to that magic number of electoral votes.

Quote:
 
Only thing I would say about this is that the change would need to be across all states to make it work, so thats a consitutional change needed, but then are you violating states rights to decide how to allocate their electoral votes?


Changing the Constitution takes a bit of work and it seems like it is increasingly hard to do that. To adopt an amendment to the Constitution requires ratification by 2/3's (or is 3/4's?) of the states. However, if that happened I doubt that it would be a question of violating their states rights because such an adoption would put it into the Constitution and nothing short of amending the Constitution again (as in the adoption and repeal of Prohibition) would change that.

It would probably be more advantageous and effective to get states to do this on own. Especially the states with large numbers of electoral votes. That might make those states, like California with 55 votes, remain in play. McCain spent almost no time here short of some fundraising efforts during primary season because a this state has not voted for a Republican since Reagan. Some of the states with smaller numbers of electoral votes might then consider doing the same thing if it looks like that is the way the wind is blowing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
3/4 of the states.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
^^^
Thank you Admiral, my mind was blanking on that for a moment...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus