| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll start by saying, despite any fallibilities or any problems, I love the US. I think it is the greatest nation on earth (as an American, if you are from another nation I would hope you wouldn't think that and would think your own nation is the greatest nation).
One thing I've heard recently are some who feel that there needs to be more direct democracy in elections instead of an electoral college.
The electoral college is the product of one of the great compromises made in the US.
Originally when debating what should or should not be in the Constitution the question came about representation of the people in Congress. States with larger populations wanted to have it where each representative stood for a certain amount of the population.
Smaller states hated this idea. It meant that those states with large populations would be able to dictate whatever they wanted to the smaller states.
They wanted each state to have equal representation, which meant that every state would be equally represented.
Larger states hated this because it gave FAR more power to smaller states than what Larger states would possess.
So, they came up with the idea that both could have this for themselves. Thus we have the House of Representatives where each states representatives are directly related to the population. We then have the Senate where each state is equally represented.
I think it is a great way to represent the interest of the large and small states.
This way I can move to Wyoming and still feel like my interests are represented. I can move to California and still have far more representatives in the House than other states might be able to dream of.
I love the Republic, and I love the US.
I've been in nations where it was far more repressive than the US. There were laws there that would horrify almost anyone in the West. There were abuses and terrible prejudices that give most discrimination we see in the US as small change in comparison.
I love the Constitution and the way things work in the US.
For some, I know recent events have caused fears to rise...and the best thing I have seen about it is this video with Stephen Colbert. I think it's awesome, and shows all Americans can be patriots and love the Republic, how we all, even with our differences can be unified and love that we all are Americans together.
Stephen Colbert signs off on 2016 election
I just want to say, I think our founding fathers were inspired when they wrote our constitution, it's a document that has enabled our government to be flexible and adaptable to a changing world for the past 227 years. I hope it will stand for another 227 years and allow people like me, and others the freedom that we love about the US and the rights inherent to it as promised in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
|
Regarding the electoral system. I never believed in its fairness or efficacy until the 2000 election. The raw politics of fighting over every single vote ballet, with political lackeys arguing over obvious stray marks or the infamous hanging chads was crazy. Imagine arguing over every vote ballet in every state. The electoral system by design limits this craziness.
|
I'll start by saying, despite any fallibilities or any problems, I love the US. I think it is the greatest nation on earth (as an American, if you are from another nation I would hope you wouldn't think that and would think your own nation is the greatest nation).
Actually I believe it is a very American thing to think that one's nation is the greatest nation :-)
And indeed many non-Americans also believe that the US (rather than their own country) is the greatest place on Earth ;-)
I just hope and pray that the constitution truly does have the power to keep one man, or two, from wrecking everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a movement to get rid of bypass the electoral college system and award all electors to whoever wins the popular vote.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
New York and ten other states have signed on, but it would not take effect until states representing 270 electors had signed on.
It's a start...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a movement to
get rid ofbypass the electoral college system and award all electors to whoever wins the popular vote.http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
New York and ten other states have signed on, but it would not take effect until states representing 270 electors had signed on.
It's a start...
It is a bad idea to go by popular vote only, as it makes it so smaller states that should have a say don't.
Only large population centers and the densest populations would get focused on by politicians and a good portion of the country would be ignored.
The following states and cities, all off the top of my head, would get the most focus.
Florida
New York
New Jersey
Texas
California
Miami
NYC
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Detroit
Chicago
Dallas
Now neither list is complete, but by focusing on the above a candidate would use his campaign funds very efficiently and get the most bang for his buck
Most of the rest of America would be largely ignored, and the system was designed to prevent that
It is a good thing that we have an electoral college
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a nice summary article about how the Electoral College helps protect against a sudden populist movement - kind of a circuit breaker for tyranny. It's not easy to understand - one mathematician spent two decades analyzing the system before he could complete a mathematical proof - but there is value to it.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a nice summary article about how the Electoral College helps protect against a sudden populist movement - kind of a circuit breaker for tyranny.
Didn't work.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the rest of America would be largely ignored, and the system was designed to prevent that
The system was also designed to keep african americans working the fields indefinitely.
Lets not treat the system as some sacrosanct ideal just because the founding saints came up with it.
Yes, sure, under a popular vote wisconson would be ignored. But as it is new york and california are being ignored. What is the advantage to ignoring a large state over a small one? That's more people.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of my vote not mattering because I live in a solid blue state. I'm tired of Floridian votes mattering more than mine.
Screw swing states. Every voter should be of equal importance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there should be THREE criteria for getting elected!
1. Win the popular vote.
2. Win the Electoral vote.
3. Win in a 'no-holds-barred' cage match with the opponent!
You could even sell the rights on pay-per-view to pay down the deficit!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of think that thinking of your country as the greatest nation on earth is just weird.
Well, if you're from Germany, like I am, that kind of thinking has some very frightening aspects to it.
But I support what the Grey Wolf says here, as we also have two chambers, one where the Federal Lands are represented and one where the citizens are directly represented by their member of the Bundestag.
Though I prefer our system a bit because I'm not convinced that the Electoral College is the best idea to handle the election of the U.S. President
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Electoral College does not seem to work as a "circuit-breaker for tyranny" anymore, perhaps because the electors were of course originally just that--people who were chosen to elect the president. They could actually vote, change their minds, etc.
Now, with them just bound to the states... *shrugs* I guess I'm not clear what function it serves except to occasionally create a situation where the person who gets the most votes loses because they didn't win the right votes in the right places. As Grumbaki said, what's the benefit to ignoring the populations of New York and Los Angeles...as we do now...in deference to the populations of Florida, Ohio, and Iowa?
People DO have representation in government outside of the president (who would still, after all, have to win a popular vote--and in this case, it was still close. Terrifyingly). They have their congressional representatives and senators. Bicameral legislature is a Great Compromise that makes incredible sense, and THAT, I think, is something to be preserved. But the EC is clunky and antiquated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a movement to
get rid ofbypass the electoral college system and award all electors to whoever wins the popular vote.http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
New York and ten other states have signed on, but it would not take effect until states representing 270 electors had signed on.
It's a start...
It is a bad idea to go by popular vote only, as it makes it so smaller states that should have a say don't.
Only large population centers and the densest populations would get focused on by politicians and a good portion of the country would be ignored.
The following states and cities, all off the top of my head, would get the most focus.
Florida
New York
New Jersey
Texas
CaliforniaMiami
NYC
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Detroit
Chicago
DallasNow neither list is complete, but by focusing on the above a candidate would use his campaign funds very efficiently and get the most bang for his buck
Most of the rest of America would be largely ignored, and the system was designed to prevent that
It is a good thing that we have an electoral college
Just curious, do you think the nation is better served by California (38 million) or New Hampshire (1.3 million) being a larger focus of the campaigns?
Republican campaigns already focus on rural areas more than urban areas, because that's where they get more votes. If you look at lists of events from this cycle, you'll see that even if the candidates focused on the same states, they didn't go to the same places in those states.
Besides, no one is talking about changing the nature of the senate or house. Low population states are still going to be over represented in the Senate, giving them significant protections against more populous states.
My state, Minnesota, is more likely to be visited for fundraisers than for public events. I don't think we'd see a big shift in that if this change went through.
Numerous states already don't get visited by candidates. Wyoming, Montana, Omaha, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Idaho, etc...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the major takeaway I have is coming from a rural state like West Virginia.
Here I see the effects of loss of jobs and the fact that slowly but surely, the people in those regions feel more and more objectified as either uneducated or at very least, ignored at the federal level.
What we need to do, much like in other places across the US, is find ways to reach them, to educate them, to give them the opportunities that they need to succeed. Until that happens...I just don't see how that changes things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it would work but in Scotland we operate by proportional representation which works for 6 million people but would it work for the states? Who knows.
Just my 2pence worth
EtG
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any political system aims at maintaining a stable society within its confines
It is my understanding that the electoral college system was put in place at a time when the critical factor for stability and even survival of the United States was the solidarity between said States. That a single State would feel wronged by the political system and desert the US was seen as the greatest threat to be avoided
But both the US and the entire world have evolved since towards the "one person, one vote" principle
Because the greatest danger to the stability of modern society is to have many people who feel wronged by the system
I am not American but my outsider view is that the electoral college system does not integrate this principle strongly enough to indeed fulfill its role as a pillar of social stability for the USA
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
, the people in those regions feel more and more objectified as either uneducated
Something their recent choices are not exactly going to dispel.
or at very least, ignored at the federal level.
One of the downsides to democracy is not being able to give people bad news.
West virginians WANT to see the economic decline and devalue of their work as the result of evil environmentalist nutjobs because evil environmentalist nutjobs can be defeated. The laws they wrote can be changed, bringing back the heyday where anyone with a strong back could earn a good living right out of highschool.
The fact is that the hippies didn't take those jobs, giant machines doing to the job at a higher profit margin did. You can repeal a law, you can't un ininvent a giant machine. The situation cannot be changed through hard work, independence, or bootstrap levitation. The solution requires broader investment in education, technology, and yes, a fair amount of socialism for the people that don't make it anyway because a college degree is no guarantee of employment these days.
and this is the problem with the electoral college: the needs, desires, and of 1 or two states shouldn't be how the entire nation is setting it's policies. Small states are already over-represented in the house and even more so in the senate. The president is the only nationally elected official that's supposed to be looking after the nation as a whole, he shouldn't be constrained to look after a few states that might go either way and ignore the rest.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
-Donald Trump.
|
|
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
-Donald Trump.
See?
Who sez he cannot tell a truth?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a transplanted New Yorker, and a naturalized American, step son to a currently serving California state congressman, both of us who could not bare to have the idea of Trump entering the Office of the Presidency, the last months have been a whirlwind.
The last 48 hours nearly impossible to take in. I am still in near shock.
The past two days must be how it feels like when after a long running campaign, all Wayne Reynolds Iconics die in the final scene and fail to stop the BBG.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a transplanted New Yorker, and a naturalized American, step son to a currently serving California state congressman, both of us who could not bare to have the idea of Trump entering the Office of the Presidency, the last months have been a whirlwind.
The last 48 hours nearly impossible to take in. I am still in near shock.
The past two days must be how it feels like when after a long running campaign, all Wayne Reynolds Iconics die in the final scene and fail to stop the BBG.
watching Rogue one is of the utmost importance now.
Save the rebellion. Save the dream.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was perplexed that the Electoral College system didn't get scrapped after Bush / Gore, and I remain confused by the desire to keep it around without some changes.
Ten states and the District of Columbia have signed on to an agreement to award their electoral college votes based on the winner of the national popular vote... but the agreement only goes into effect if they have enough votes (currently 270) to determine the presidency.
As of yet, not a single GOP controlled state has signed on... and therein lies the answer to your perplexity.
The Republican party knows that the electoral college system favors them. Both of the last two GOP presidents have first been elected despite losing the popular vote.
IMO Obama should have used the one day he had a senate supermajority in place to pass comprehensive voting reform (e.g. no more hours long lines in minority districts, nationwide vote by mail, voting day a national holiday) rather than healthcare reform. Allowing ALL the people to vote would have eventually brought along every other priority that needs addressing.
That didn't happen, so now we have another GOP president that most voters did not want. We will continue to have a house of representatives with a GOP majority despite Democrat candidates receiving more votes. We will continue to have a Supreme Court which leans heavily to the right and continually rolls back voter protections. Et cetera.
The only 'good' news is that the longer the GOP holds on to power through vote suppression and dilution the bigger the wave that eventually forces them out will have to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll start by saying, despite any fallibilities or any problems, I love the US. I think it is the greatest nation on earth (as an American, if you are from another nation I would hope you wouldn't think that and would think your own nation is the greatest nation).Actually I believe it is a very American thing to think that one's nation is the greatest nation :-)
And indeed many non-Americans also believe that the US (rather than their own country) is the greatest place on Earth ;-)
I kind of think that thinking of your country as the greatest nation on earth is just weird.
There's definitely some great stuff about America, but there's also some pretty horrendous stuff in our history and even our present. Other countries have some pretty awesome stuff too. Getting locked in the "we're the greatest" mindset makes it harder to see the flaws and improve them or to adopt new ideas from other countries.You can love your country certainly and I hope you do, where ever you live, but it doesn't have to be the greatest for that.
I mean, isn't that part of becoming an adult? When you're a kid you're completely self-centered, you just assume your family and your crew and your town and your country are the greatest in the world and the standard by which everything is judged. When you grow up you realize you're just another one of zillions, many people do things better than you, or at least differently, and you're not special.
For all the talk this cycle about the neglect of the rural areas and the insults aimed at the people in them, it's not like our urban areas are paradises where no one is ever mistreated or insulted. Sure, they're fine for the elites, but so's anywhere. The urban poor are dealing with many of the same problems, just more concentrated. Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago.I think the major takeaway I have is coming from a rural state like West Virginia.
Here I see the effects of loss of jobs and the fact that slowly but surely, the people in those regions feel more and more objectified as either uneducated or at very least, ignored at the federal level.
What we need to do, much like in other places across the US, is find ways to reach them, to educate them, to give them the opportunities that they need to succeed. Until that happens...I just don't see how that changes things.
And yet population density is the single best predictor of which way a county will vote. Whether they're neglected or not, there is a cultural divide between urban and rural areas.
Of course, that divide has been present for 200 years. The only time that that divide took a backseat was when slavery was the dominating issue.
For all the talk this cycle about the neglect of the rural areas and the insults aimed at the people in them, it's not like our urban areas are paradises where no one is ever mistreated or insulted. Sure, they're fine for the elites, but so's anywhere. The urban poor are dealing with many of the same problems, just more concentrated. Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago.I think the major takeaway I have is coming from a rural state like West Virginia.
Here I see the effects of loss of jobs and the fact that slowly but surely, the people in those regions feel more and more objectified as either uneducated or at very least, ignored at the federal level.
What we need to do, much like in other places across the US, is find ways to reach them, to educate them, to give them the opportunities that they need to succeed. Until that happens...I just don't see how that changes things.
And yet population density is the single best predictor of which way a county will vote. Whether they're neglected or not, there is a cultural divide between urban and rural areas.
Of course, that divide has been present for 200 years. The only time that that divide took a backseat was when slavery was the dominating issue.
The Roman Republic had the same issue with rural vs urban.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Republican party knows that the electoral college system favors them. Both of the last two GOP presidents have first been elected despite losing the popular vote.
As I'm not in the know, are you sure about that? because when I look at California for example, the republicans would actually have a lot to win, if the electorates would be split according to the vote, much more probably when there would be no electoral college system at all just because of the numbers of voters living there. This may be countered by the republican losing votes in their natural homestates, but a short calculation with splitted electorate for the four biggest states (California, Texas, New York and Florida) showed me that actually not much might change at all regarding the end result.
The main problem, as it stands, seems to be that if you're an republican living in California, your vote (regarding the election of the next president) means as much as if you're a democrat living in Texas: Nothing. And as I followed the pre-election discussion here on these boards, this seemed to be a recurring motive: If I'm not living in a swing state, why should I vote at all, it won't change anything anyway.
A kind of thinking which, whether true or not, kind of destroys the main argument for having a democracy, that every vote counts.
I don't follow. A swing state is a state that might go to either candidate. Which end up there varies over time. If Texas republicans make enough of a stink as governors, it will become a swing state. But even more, the point of a democracy is not, nor has it ever been, that every vote counts. It is that power is held with the consent of the people. By extension, if a ruler does badly enough, someone else will be elected. If you are a Texan democrat, all you really need to do to "make your vote count" is move to another state, isn't it? If women's, or blacks', votes were not counted, fine, but that is not the issue.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't follow. A swing state is a state that might go to either candidate. Which end up there varies over time. If Texas republicans make enough of a stink as governors, it will become a swing state. But even more, the point of a democracy is not, nor has it ever been, that every vote counts. It is that power is held with the consent of the people. By extension, if a ruler does badly enough, someone else will be elected. If you are a Texan democrat, all you really need to do to "make your vote count" is move to another state, isn't it? If women's, or blacks', votes were not counted, fine, but that is not the issue.
The Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013. Multiple states that switched from Obama to Trump were states that specifically targeted black communities in voter suppression efforts (reducing polling locations, instituting voter ID laws, reducing places where you can get ID's, eliminating early voting, etc).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Texas republicans make enough of a stink as governors, it will become a swing state.
Reality proves otherwise. The swing states aren't swing states because their governments make nothing but a stink all the time. And California and Texas are surely not basically one-party-states because they had only awesome governors all the time.
Apart from that, you may have misunderstood that my point wasn't to advocate for a simple majority vote system or even popular vote.
My point is, that even in a representative democracy (which I prefer), if you don't feel that your vote is represented anyhow, you'll feel that your vote has no influence whatsoever and consequently stop consenting with those that hold the power.
And that's exactly what happens with the electorate system as handled my most states. If you don't vote as the majority does, your voice gets immediately discarded as unimportant.
It's like here in Germany with our 5% voting limit to achieve access to the Bundestag as a political party. There's reason why this limiter exists, but if you happen to vote for a party that doesn't reach this 5%, it's basically the same thing as if you didn't vote at all. Given how many non-voters are everywhere, and given how successful populistic protest movements are all around the world, things like that don't seem to work itself out in the long term.
If you are a Texan democrat, all you really need to do to "make your vote count" is move to another state, isn't it?
Really? That's basically the same as if to say to any american citizen: Oh, well, if you don't like it here, then get the f**k out of our country.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be specific, what was gutted was the selection of certain states to be under closer scrutiny because of conditions that were in effect at the time the Voting Rights Act was passed. That part of the Voting Rights Act was always supposed to be temporary but was kept in effect for several decades because of the hysteria that resulted whenever anyone attempted to vote to repeal it.
Had somebody proposed extending that closer scrutiny nationwide, we would have put in place a system that nobody could dispute the fairness of. If fairness in elections was the goal, why did nobody ever propose doing that?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be very clear, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That means more people voted for Clinton than Trump - that's an undisputed fact, and one that should not be discounted, becasue it's very relevant.
Trump won the election becasue of our out-dated and rather convoluted electoral college system, not because more Americans voted for him. That feels like a pretty valid reason to at least consider doing away with the electoral college and going with a direct democracy where every person's vote is counted, and more importantly, every person's vote actually counts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be specific, what was gutted was the selection of certain states to be under closer scrutiny because of conditions that were in effect at the time the Voting Rights Act was passed. that?
Sadly I am no longer convinced those conditions have changed.
No, it is not. You want your vote to count, you need to move to a swing state. If you stay in California, or Texas, your vote won't count no matter who you vote for. BOTH democrats and republicans in Texas give votes that don't change anything - and neither party is very interested in catering to their wishes. Right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The method of apportioning electors was left to the states by our Constitution -- but once a few states went with a "winner takes all" system, nearly all of the other states felt obliged to follow suit. I am having a tough time seeing how the people of any large state would vote to switch to a different system that reduces the power of its current majority.
But the current system does have one advantage -- since it is next to impossible to change state borders, it is also next to impossible for anyone to gerrymander them for electoral advantage.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people on the left are trying to cast blame elsewhere. I know the temptation is to point fingers everywhere, from the electoral college to abusive voting regulations.
But I think the real fault has to rest with the Democratic Party. We totally misjudged the campaign and underestimated the demographic shifts in the blue wall while overestimating those in the swing states.
We also, rather than consolidating the progressive left, ran a candidate with 20+ year record of constant smearing and who, more than anyone else, was a symbol of the establishment. In a year where anti-establishment vibes were strong forces on both sides of the political divide.
And we neglected key constituents with the assumption they would show up (the youth, African Americans), while waging a war for the mythical unicorn that is the moderate republican that likes Clinton.
The Clinton campaign focused on one of fear over there opponent while not at the same time giving hope on key progressive issues that might have brought out those missing voters.
Prior to the election we obsessed over the problems that the Republican Party faced. I think, in light of this complete failure, the Democratic Party needs to attend to their own house. We can take the House and Senate in 2018 and force Trump out at 2020, but not without a deep long look at what went wrong this.
|
|
The Electoral College is a very effective and productive institution for keeping large majorities in a few states from gaining excessive influence in the outcome of Presidential elections.
The poor rural whites that Democrats and the journalist class abandoned in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio had their voices heard this election rather than seeing their voices drowned out by California's swelling immigrant population.
It also prevents the temptation of states gaming the system by lowering the voting age in a close election to try and stack the deck. Lowering the voting age in a red or blue state doesn't help a candidate since it doesn't affect the number of electoral votes that candidate receives.
So I will fight just as hard to keep the Electoral College preserved as I fought to see Donald Trump elected.
But I completely agree that this winner take all nonsense has to stop. Anyone who pushes to have their state assign electoral vote by district rather than by state has my support. Places like Pennsylvania and Florida are divided in half, so let each district decide for itself and the two parties can split a state's electoral votes rather than one party come so close and get nothing.
And when you follow this idea to its logical conclusion, you end up with the vote being counted at the smallest part of the country aka the citizen ;-)