Popular Vote or Electoral College?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

WRT popular elections, it would move America close to a ‘1-man 1-vote’ concept. How is that a bad thing? Places without loud voices (like AR, AL, AK) are places that should not have loud voices. Why does the American public need a filter over its political voice?

WRT direct election of senators- calling the 17th an effect of ‘progressive’ movements does little to discredit it. So too is America’s prohibitional drug laws, which have strong support in non-progressive circles. I’ll admit it allows an indolent and uncaring public to elect poor representatives, but it also discourages devious state legislatures from making illicit backroom deals for political office.

I don’t see the 17th amendment as a mistake, or, at least, mistake enough to rescind the amendment.

22

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
They get away with all that they do because politicians can always pander to the (majority) ignorant electorate at election time. People are voting who cannot even explain for you the basic workings of our government. Ask anyone to name their federal representatives, or even to tell you how many senators there are. Seriously, a random poll would show you exactly how ignorant the average voter is. Scary stuff…
[/quote]

So how do you fix that?

Do you have the youth take a course on government in high school? (They do)
On economics? (they do)
Do you have parades in every city celebrating (or at least acknowledging) the local political leaders?

People don’t know because they don’t care. And they don’t care because most things in life plod along just fine. I see the ignorance of the uninvolved as a good thing. It means the government is doing a good job at keeping bellies full and minds empty.

23

[quote]Otep wrote:
WRT popular elections, it would move America close to a ‘1-man 1-vote’ concept. How is that a bad thing? Places without loud voices (like AR, AL, AK) are places that should not have loud voices. Why does the American public need a filter over its political voice?

WRT direct election of senators- calling the 17th an effect of ‘progressive’ movements does little to discredit it. So too is America’s prohibitional drug laws, which have strong support in non-progressive circles. I’ll admit it allows an indolent and uncaring public to elect poor representatives, but it also discourages devious state legislatures from making illicit backroom deals for political office.

I don’t see the 17th amendment as a mistake, or, at least, mistake enough to rescind the amendment.[/quote]

The problem is that high population areas like new England and California would essentially override places like Montana and Nebraska. Small states have different problems concerns and needs than high population density areas. They need a voice in the federal government.

Are you in favor of changing the senate to population based representation also? That way rural populations could be completely donimated by urban populations.

Popularity based voting is completely unfair to a diverse population.

Lets put it this way. If the people of new york state voted, as a strict collective with a strict popular vote (1-man 1-vote), on where to spend all the state’s tax dollars, every single dollar would end up in new york city and the rural people would get nothing (not even something proportional to their minority of population).

24

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
They get away with all that they do because politicians can always pander to the (majority) ignorant electorate at election time. People are voting who cannot even explain for you the basic workings of our government. Ask anyone to name their federal representatives, or even to tell you how many senators there are. Seriously, a random poll would show you exactly how ignorant the average voter is. Scary stuff…
[/quote]

So how do you fix that?

Do you have the youth take a course on government in high school? (They do)
On economics? (they do)
Do you have parades in every city celebrating (or at least acknowledging) the local political leaders?

People don’t know because they don’t care. And they don’t care because most things in life plod along just fine. I see the ignorance of the uninvolved as a good thing. It means the government is doing a good job at keeping bellies full and minds empty.[/quote]

Basic knowledge test for voting.

25

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I reserve the right to make a decision on whether it is better for the State Legislature can pick a better Senator, or the people can. There are pros and cons to both sides.[/quote]

Let me make my case for the state legislatures being the better decision maker:

Theoretically, the state legislators themselves should have a better handle on determining the mettle of the persons who should/will be selected to represent the state in D.C. as senator. In other words, they would most likely be “connected” or closer, and thus more qualified to choose the right person for the job. Now, by the same token, the legislators themselves should be connected or closer to the actual man and woman in their districts. Hence, the overall effect should mean that the senator serving is Washington is actually closer to the people WITHOUT popular election as enabled now by the 17th Amendment.

Example: as it is now, a US Senatorial candidate can campaign in just key areas of his state and still win the election. He doesn’t have to “connect” with all the people in his state. But without the 17th Amendment he would need more of a consensus within the state legislature and I think consequently represent his entire state better.

Make sense?

(Not sure that I expressed my point clearly. Someone help me out here)[/quote]

Makes perfect sense. My only concern is what Thunderbolt has stated. Another issue is bribes and gifts. If the legislature votes on it then there are fewer people to bribe. The population has a lot more people, but what we have learned from Minnesota that can be manipulated. Come to find out the margin of victory for Fraken was smaller than the number of convicted felons that voted for him illegally. Just concerns I have, but I see your point. Maybe we should have to have some more transparency, i.e. all bank accounts of State and Federal Politicians should be open for review and audit at a drop of a hat, including their political accounts.

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
They get away with all that they do because politicians can always pander to the (majority) ignorant electorate at election time. People are voting who cannot even explain for you the basic workings of our government. Ask anyone to name their federal representatives, or even to tell you how many senators there are. Seriously, a random poll would show you exactly how ignorant the average voter is. Scary stuff…
[/quote]

So how do you fix that?

Do you have the youth take a course on government in high school? (They do)
On economics? (they do)
Do you have parades in every city celebrating (or at least acknowledging) the local political leaders?

People don’t know because they don’t care. And they don’t care because most things in life plod along just fine. I see the ignorance of the uninvolved as a good thing. It means the government is doing a good job at keeping bellies full and minds empty.[/quote]

Basic knowledge test for voting.[/quote]

Who decides what, and how much, knowledge is required to vote?

27

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
WRT popular elections, it would move America close to a ‘1-man 1-vote’ concept. How is that a bad thing? Places without loud voices (like AR, AL, AK) are places that should not have loud voices. Why does the American public need a filter over its political voice?

WRT direct election of senators- calling the 17th an effect of ‘progressive’ movements does little to discredit it. So too is America’s prohibitional drug laws, which have strong support in non-progressive circles. I’ll admit it allows an indolent and uncaring public to elect poor representatives, but it also discourages devious state legislatures from making illicit backroom deals for political office.

I don’t see the 17th amendment as a mistake, or, at least, mistake enough to rescind the amendment.[/quote]

The problem is that high population areas like new England and California would essentially override places like Montana and Nebraska. Small states have different problems concerns and needs than high population density areas. They need a voice in the federal government.

Are you in favor of changing the senate to population based representation also? That way rural populations could be completely donimated by urban populations.

Popularity based voting is completely unfair to a diverse population.

Lets put it this way. If the people of new york state voted, as a strict collective with a strict popular vote (1-man 1-vote), on where to spend all the state’s tax dollars, every single dollar would end up in new york city and the rural people would get nothing (not even something proportional to their minority of population).[/quote]

Not a favor of moving the Senate to be representational. The purpose of the Senate and the purpose of the Presidency are two different matters.

I’m not sure how far your NYC example goes. NY liberals might actually push to extend unreasonably large sums to service rural areas with modern utilities (roads, water, electricity, internet). Also, municipalities have the power to levy taxes and create the trappings of law on their own; the City would not abrogate that. Lastly, at the national level, there are protections in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority (BoR, 14th amendment, the construction of the Senate).

28

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
WRT popular elections, it would move America close to a ‘1-man 1-vote’ concept. How is that a bad thing? Places without loud voices (like AR, AL, AK) are places that should not have loud voices. Why does the American public need a filter over its political voice?

WRT direct election of senators- calling the 17th an effect of ‘progressive’ movements does little to discredit it. So too is America’s prohibitional drug laws, which have strong support in non-progressive circles. I’ll admit it allows an indolent and uncaring public to elect poor representatives, but it also discourages devious state legislatures from making illicit backroom deals for political office.

I don’t see the 17th amendment as a mistake, or, at least, mistake enough to rescind the amendment.[/quote]

The problem is that high population areas like new England and California would essentially override places like Montana and Nebraska. Small states have different problems concerns and needs than high population density areas. They need a voice in the federal government.

Are you in favor of changing the senate to population based representation also? That way rural populations could be completely donimated by urban populations.

Popularity based voting is completely unfair to a diverse population.

Lets put it this way. If the people of new york state voted, as a strict collective with a strict popular vote (1-man 1-vote), on where to spend all the state’s tax dollars, every single dollar would end up in new york city and the rural people would get nothing (not even something proportional to their minority of population).[/quote]

Not a favor of moving the Senate to be representational. The purpose of the Senate and the purpose of the Presidency are two different matters.

I’m not sure how far your NYC example goes. NY liberals might actually push to extend unreasonably large sums to service rural areas with modern utilities (roads, water, electricity, internet). Also, municipalities have the power to levy taxes and create the trappings of law on their own; the City would not abrogate that. Lastly, at the national level, there are protections in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority (BoR, 14th amendment, the construction of the Senate).[/quote]

I doubt it. City seems to focus on city. There’s never enough money for most cities. They tend to be very close minded on their own little world.

29

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
WRT popular elections, it would move America close to a ‘1-man 1-vote’ concept. How is that a bad thing? Places without loud voices (like AR, AL, AK) are places that should not have loud voices. Why does the American public need a filter over its political voice?

WRT direct election of senators- calling the 17th an effect of ‘progressive’ movements does little to discredit it. So too is America’s prohibitional drug laws, which have strong support in non-progressive circles. I’ll admit it allows an indolent and uncaring public to elect poor representatives, but it also discourages devious state legislatures from making illicit backroom deals for political office.

I don’t see the 17th amendment as a mistake, or, at least, mistake enough to rescind the amendment.[/quote]

The problem is that high population areas like new England and California would essentially override places like Montana and Nebraska. Small states have different problems concerns and needs than high population density areas. They need a voice in the federal government.

Are you in favor of changing the senate to population based representation also? That way rural populations could be completely donimated by urban populations.

Popularity based voting is completely unfair to a diverse population.

Lets put it this way. If the people of new york state voted, as a strict collective with a strict popular vote (1-man 1-vote), on where to spend all the state’s tax dollars, every single dollar would end up in new york city and the rural people would get nothing (not even something proportional to their minority of population).[/quote]

Not a favor of moving the Senate to be representational. The purpose of the Senate and the purpose of the Presidency are two different matters.

I’m not sure how far your NYC example goes. NY liberals might actually push to extend unreasonably large sums to service rural areas with modern utilities (roads, water, electricity, internet). Also, municipalities have the power to levy taxes and create the trappings of law on their own; the City would not abrogate that. Lastly, at the national level, there are protections in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority (BoR, 14th amendment, the construction of the Senate).[/quote]

I doubt it. City seems to focus on city. There’s never enough money for most cities. They tend to be very close minded on their own little world.[/quote]

This actually already happens to an extent. Counties that contain metro area tend to spend all the tax money on the city part and ignore the more rural parts of the county.

At least it’s that way around atlanta and nashville.

Atlanta even had a big controversy over it. Peoples tax money was going to a city they didn’t live in or go to while their roads fell into disrepair.

There is a reason to add weight to the voice of less populated areas.

30

WE THE PEOPLE ARE TOO FUCKING DUMB TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A SAY. if jerry ‘moonbeam’ brown is the fucking governor of california my faith in humanity is gone. the fact that that pile of stupid even made it past the primaries is nauseating.

but then who ends up in charge? probably some lieing power hungry cocksucker who needs a fucking bullet in the head, and in a dictatorship said cocksucker has even more power and fucks our assses even harder than the fucking moron we elect. GOD DAMN WE ARE FUCKING STUPID. if we were smart we would start with shooting all the politicians and lawyers and starting over lol.

31

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
WRT popular elections, it would move America close to a ‘1-man 1-vote’ concept. How is that a bad thing? Places without loud voices (like AR, AL, AK) are places that should not have loud voices. Why does the American public need a filter over its political voice?

WRT direct election of senators- calling the 17th an effect of ‘progressive’ movements does little to discredit it. So too is America’s prohibitional drug laws, which have strong support in non-progressive circles. I’ll admit it allows an indolent and uncaring public to elect poor representatives, but it also discourages devious state legislatures from making illicit backroom deals for political office.

I don’t see the 17th amendment as a mistake, or, at least, mistake enough to rescind the amendment.[/quote]

The problem is that high population areas like new England and California would essentially override places like Montana and Nebraska. Small states have different problems concerns and needs than high population density areas. They need a voice in the federal government.

Are you in favor of changing the senate to population based representation also? That way rural populations could be completely donimated by urban populations.

Popularity based voting is completely unfair to a diverse population.

Lets put it this way. If the people of new york state voted, as a strict collective with a strict popular vote (1-man 1-vote), on where to spend all the state’s tax dollars, every single dollar would end up in new york city and the rural people would get nothing (not even something proportional to their minority of population).[/quote]

Not a favor of moving the Senate to be representational. The purpose of the Senate and the purpose of the Presidency are two different matters.

I’m not sure how far your NYC example goes. NY liberals might actually push to extend unreasonably large sums to service rural areas with modern utilities (roads, water, electricity, internet). Also, municipalities have the power to levy taxes and create the trappings of law on their own; the City would not abrogate that. Lastly, at the national level, there are protections in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority (BoR, 14th amendment, the construction of the Senate).[/quote]

I doubt it. City seems to focus on city. There’s never enough money for most cities. They tend to be very close minded on their own little world.[/quote]

This actually already happens to an extent. Counties that contain metro area tend to spend all the tax money on the city part and ignore the more rural parts of the county.

At least it’s that way around atlanta and nashville.

Atlanta even had a big controversy over it. Peoples tax money was going to a city they didn’t live in or go to while their roads fell into disrepair.

There is a reason to add weight to the voice of less populated areas. [/quote]

That is not always the case, as northern virginia is pretty big metropolitan area, yet the rest of Virginia gets more in tax from this area than the services we receive. That being said, I LOVE the fact that the rest of Virginia keeps the tax rates low, gun laws lax, and other liberties intact, lest we become another DC.

32

[quote]Otep wrote:
I like the part where the guys says that liberals are sneaky. I thought it was funny.

I don’t see a problem with switching to a straight popular vote. There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators. Why do we need a filter in front of the political voice of the American people? It obviously doesn’t prevent shameless populism.[/quote]

The electoral college is a vital component of the republican form of government we possess. The reform needed is not an abolition of th eelectoral college but a proportional assignment of the electoral votes. That returns the power of the vote to the representational concept designed by our founding fathers.

33

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I reserve the right to make a decision on whether it is better for the State Legislature can pick a better Senator, or the people can. There are pros and cons to both sides.[/quote]

Let me make my case for the state legislatures being the better decision maker:

Theoretically, the state legislators themselves should have a better handle on determining the mettle of the persons who should/will be selected to represent the state in D.C. as senator. In other words, they would most likely be “connected” or closer, and thus more qualified to choose the right person for the job. Now, by the same token, the legislators themselves should be connected or closer to the actual man and woman in their districts. Hence, the overall effect should mean that the senator serving is Washington is actually closer to the people WITHOUT popular election as enabled now by the 17th Amendment.

Example: as it is now, a US Senatorial candidate can campaign in just key areas of his state and still win the election. He doesn’t have to “connect” with all the people in his state. But without the 17th Amendment he would need more of a consensus within the state legislature and I think consequently represent his entire state better.

Make sense?

(Not sure that I expressed my point clearly. Someone help me out here)[/quote]

Yep - the Senate is a powerful body by design. The founding fathers tied their power directly to the state legislatures to prevent power abuse by these individuals. They would have to abide by the dictates and wishes of the duly elected state representatives of the poeple. The House was the local rep and the senate was the state rep - with the local rep in charge of money and the state rep in charge of overall state equality. By seperating the senate from its deisgned base, it has become the prolifigate big-spending, no-restraint pork barrel corrupt body that it is today . . . .

34

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The electoral college is a vital component of the republican form of government we possess. The reform needed is not an abolition of th eelectoral college but a proportional assignment of the electoral votes. That returns the power of the vote to the representational concept designed by our founding fathers.[/quote]

So the electoral college is vital. But it needs to be reformed… to be more proportional. I’m assuming ‘proportional’ means ‘proportional to each states population relative to the country as a whole (minus the territories)’.

You know, nothing would be more proportional than an actual popular vote.

35

What about electorates debating on who to vote for and most votes is pres and 2nd most is vice pres. Seems like going back to a 1 person ticket might even things out a bit.

36

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The electoral college is a vital component of the republican form of government we possess. The reform needed is not an abolition of th eelectoral college but a proportional assignment of the electoral votes. That returns the power of the vote to the representational concept designed by our founding fathers.[/quote]

So the electoral college is vital. But it needs to be reformed… to be more proportional. I’m assuming ‘proportional’ means ‘proportional to each states population relative to the country as a whole (minus the territories)’.

You know, nothing would be more proportional than an actual popular vote.[/quote]

LOL - no - not “more” proportional - replacing the “all or none” assignment of state’s electoral votes to a porportional assignment of electoral votes - 40% for one candidate = 40% of electoral votes for that state . . .

We are a republic - not a democracy . . . we need to act like one.

37

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What about electorates debating on who to vote for and most votes is pres and 2nd most is vice pres. Seems like going back to a 1 person ticket might even things out a bit.[/quote]

Actually a great idea - that was the design of the founders - top electoral vote winner gets the presidency and the runner up gets the vice presidency - checks and balances all the way . . .

38

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What about electorates debating on who to vote for and most votes is pres and 2nd most is vice pres. Seems like going back to a 1 person ticket might even things out a bit.[/quote]

Actually a great idea - that was the design of the founders - top electoral vote winner gets the presidency and the runner up gets the vice presidency - checks and balances all the way . . .[/quote]

Right. Because an Adams- Jefferson line-up made so much sense.

I guess it does depend on how much one wishes to stymie the federal government.

39

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I reserve the right to make a decision on whether it is better for the State Legislature can pick a better Senator, or the people can. There are pros and cons to both sides.[/quote]

Let me make my case for the state legislatures being the better decision maker:

Theoretically, the state legislators themselves should have a better handle on determining the mettle of the persons who should/will be selected to represent the state in D.C. as senator. In other words, they would most likely be “connected” or closer, and thus more qualified to choose the right person for the job. Now, by the same token, the legislators themselves should be connected or closer to the actual man and woman in their districts. Hence, the overall effect should mean that the senator serving is Washington is actually closer to the people WITHOUT popular election as enabled now by the 17th Amendment.

Example: as it is now, a US Senatorial candidate can campaign in just key areas of his state and still win the election. He doesn’t have to “connect” with all the people in his state. But without the 17th Amendment he would need more of a consensus within the state legislature and I think consequently represent his entire state better.

Make sense?

(Not sure that I expressed my point clearly. Someone help me out here)[/quote]

Yep - the Senate is a powerful body by design. The founding fathers tied their power directly to the state legislatures to prevent power abuse by these individuals. They would have to abide by the dictates and wishes of the duly elected state representatives of the poeple. The House was the local rep and the senate was the state rep - with the local rep in charge of money and the state rep in charge of overall state equality. By seperating the senate from its deisgned base, it has become the prolifigate big-spending, no-restraint pork barrel corrupt body that it is today . . . .[/quote]

Great way of saying that. I am starting to understand the concept more.

This country was set up by the founding fathers so that change was very hard to do. They wanted a burocracy. If change is hard then our liberties and freedoms will stay intact. Over the years we have made it easier for the government to take away our freedoms. That is not what the founding fathers wanted.