|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 7, 2020 11:59:08 GMT -5
"The Founders" were so concerned about the illegitimacy of a government formed without a majority that they required a majority vote by the Electoral College. Failing that, the election goes to the House.
Unfortunately for modern-day America, they were also a bunch of elitists and white-male supremacists who needed to get buy-in from a lot of diverse states with a lot of diverse interests. So they assured states that they would have the primary power to select the government via the Electoral College.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,237 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 12:04:57 GMT -5
Ranked choice voting would be pretty interesting. I think Lincoln loses in 1860. It would have been every interesting to see the outcome in 1992. Nixon probably doesn't win 1968, but don't know that for sure.
1960 would have been very interesting. Who knows how the 268K in Louisiana and Mississippi would have voted? And then, Alabama was a complete mess, where everyone was allowed up to 11 votes - voting for electors. History has allocated all the unpledged votes in Alabama to Kennedy - which means that Kennedy most likely lost the popular vote to Nixon. And then who would all those unpledged votes gone for if they had to choose between Kennedy/Nixon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 12:05:34 GMT -5
And there were only 13 states. Granted, the plantation states were very different from the New England states, but this idea that what applied in 1780 still works in 2020? Absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 12:13:26 GMT -5
I will say it again. The very concept of democracy, and supposedly the foundation of our government, is that the government represents the will of the people. And the will is determined by voting. The majority is supposed to win. Any structure that gets in the way of the majority winning delegitimizes the democratic nature of the government. We do have some rules that are intentionally undemocratic -- rules that prohibit a majority from voting away basic rights of a minority. But there is pretty broad consensus that these rules are for the common good. There is *not* a broad consensus that it is good that a small handful of "swing states" determines the outcome of our Presidential elections. In fact, there is pretty much a consensus that this is not good, except for the small fraction of people who live in those "swing states". Not just in the US but all around the world -- when the majority of people in a country are under the power of a government they voted against, that's a fundamental problem for the legitimacy of that government. You're talking about an ideal democracy. (which I agree with)
Some of the colonies realized that since they had fewer people, they would (deservedly) have less representation (power) in the federal government. They wanted to cheat that. So the founders had to compromise on that ideal, to get them aboard, to fight off England, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 12:15:15 GMT -5
"The Founders" were so concerned about the illegitimacy of a government formed without a majority that they required a majority vote by the Electoral College. Failing that, the election goes to the House. Unfortunately for modern-day America, they were also a bunch of elitists and white-male supremacists who needed to get buy-in from a lot of diverse states with a lot of diverse interests. So they assured states that they would have the primary power to select the government via the Electoral College. They were concerned about beating the English. So they sacrificed on democracy, to achieve that.
And we're stuck with that sacrifice.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 7, 2020 12:18:57 GMT -5
England had already been fought off. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Revolutionary War ended for all practical purposes in 1781, and ended by treaty in 1783.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 12:21:55 GMT -5
England had already been fought off. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Revolutionary War ended for all practical purposes in 1781, and ended by treaty in 1783. My point still stands, actually. Promises were made. Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight, if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government.
When you look at it like 13 countries committing to something closer to the EU, it makes a lot more sense.
Maybe that's what we should be, 50 countries with an EU style union.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 7, 2020 12:34:09 GMT -5
It's always been a potential problem. But it has become more and more of a problem in the last 20 years. The closer the races have become, the more it becomes an issue. It is absolutely not right that a POTUS governs based on which states he needs to win AND just ignores (at best) states he cannot. It may depend on who is in charge. At the very least, even Reagan and Bush weren't punitive against states and municipalities which they perceived as their political enemies. Trump doesn't even try to hide that he wants to cut off funding to "blue states" for one reason or another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 12:40:35 GMT -5
Yes, it does help when the POTUS has some resemblance to an actual human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 7, 2020 12:41:02 GMT -5
"The Founders" were so concerned about the illegitimacy of a government formed without a majority that they required a majority vote by the Electoral College. Failing that, the election goes to the House. Unfortunately for modern-day America, they were also a bunch of elitists and white-male supremacists who needed to get buy-in from a lot of diverse states with a lot of diverse interests. So they assured states that they would have the primary power to select the government via the Electoral College. I think we've discussed this before, but the Electoral College wasn't meant to work. The only mandate in the Constitution is that state legislatures determine the method of appointing electors. It was meant to be chaotic. The original idea was that most states would select individuals to be electors and not candidates to be President. The two party system and most states with with a popular vote for a slate of pledged electors is what changed the dynamic. |
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Oct 7, 2020 12:44:25 GMT -5
England had already been fought off. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Revolutionary War ended for all practical purposes in 1781, and ended by treaty in 1783. My point still stands, actually. Promises were made. Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight, if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government. When you look at it like 13 countries committing to something closer to the EU, it makes a lot more sense. Maybe that's what we should be, 50 countries with an EU style union. The per-population House/per-state Senate compromise did not come from any bargain related to the Revolutionary War: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_CompromiseThe Electoral College was a hack that came after that. As for the EU, they have the same problem we have, but coming from the opposite direction: how to provide a common currency/financial system while providing the desired autonomy to separate states. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 7, 2020 16:44:24 GMT -5
So, if I applied for admission to the Electoral College, would I have to take the SAT/ACT? Also, do they have tech options? And what about their rec center? Is there a pool?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 7, 2020 16:46:47 GMT -5
And speaking of the Electoral College...
Only 4 more spots remaining for the Fantasy Electoral College League.
You "draft" Regular States, Battleground States, predict Trump/Biden victor in those states, margin of victory, etc.
Today is Oct. 7. National Election Day is Nov. 3, so, you know, it's getting close.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 7, 2020 16:54:41 GMT -5
So, if I applied for admission to the Electoral College, would I have to take the SAT/ACT? Also, do they have tech options? And what about their rec center? Is there a pool? Unless you're in an elected office, I think you're eligible. Just ask to be nominated. You might get access to the facilities that legislators can use. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 7, 2020 17:02:55 GMT -5
Umm...okay...that was a joke.
|
|
