FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
He/she would not be the second choice of the majority, though. He/she would be the first choice of the opposition, and probably the last choice of the majority. The comparison is null.
Proposals for Electoral Reform
- Thread starter Cancel11
- Start date
He/she would not be the second choice of the majority, though. He/she would be the first choice of the opposition, and probably the last choice of the majority. The comparison is null.
Good Luck
New member
As I believe you are aware, they tried that under the original design of the constitution. First place became president, second place became vice.
Article II, Section 1:
"...In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President...."
That method lasted all of four election cycles before they understood that the runner up was not about to give up their political differences with the president in order to work under him as vice president. So they changed it with the 12th amendment.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
Democrats only recognize the First Amendment, and they way they stretch it, the Founders wouldn't.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Good luck, again your absolute immaturity whenever it comes to history rears its ugly face.
The system designed under the constitution gave the electors two votes, and the top two were selected. This meant, basically, that the people who selected number one could just as easily select number two. Each party set up a system by this time so that they'd all cast their votes for the president, and everyone except for one would cast their votes for the vice president. However, Alexander Hamilton tried to manipulate the system to make Pinckney president instead of Adams, and whenever the federalist electors heard of this, they did not cast their votes as planned, and whenever the final count came out splits amongst federalist electors made Jefforson second.
In the election after this, everyone cast their votes too precisely, and their was a tie between the desired Veep and the desired pres. Thats when they decided that the system was foolhardy.
The problem had been that the founders hadn't thought that people would organize themselves that well. They did. And people throughout the nation knew perfectly well who they were voted for. In the first two real contested elections the electors became nothing but proxies.
uscitizen
Villified User
It would none the less be the second choice of the majority. vote for two, any two, most votes is president and next most is VP. I am talking popular vote here, not the expectorial college.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I thought you were talking about vote for one and the second one becomes VP.
If people had two votes, they would likely vote for two Republicans or two Democrats.
The kind with declared candidates, not party proposed lists. Where you vote for people rather than just platforms.Well it was just a random thing in a list of proposals, Damo. You don't like it and thats clear and I doubt pages of arguing is going to choose either of our mind.
You prefer proportional? What kind of proportinal, LOL.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I could think of literally 10,000 or so methods that do that. Including open part lists.
But I assume you mean STV, since you're an idiot whenever it comes to these things.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I disagree on a number of levels.
#1. Ending the electoral college would end Presidential representation in the rural and less populated States and regions. New York, Chicago and LA would dominate Presidential politics.
#2. Nice statistical formula but is it significant?
#3. We all ready have term limits. There called elections.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You know Damo, the other day I had a double root canal. I found this far more enjoyable than debating you about voting methods.
Whenever we debate about voting methods, it's like:
WM: Hey guys, I think it would be better if *lists a few random choices here*
Damo: LOL *takes one from the list and makes a ridiculous parody at it, nitpicking at the tiniest flaws that will probably never show up* IS TEH SUXXOR U NUB
WM: Alright Damo, that's a perfectly legitimate point of view, but I think you're blowing things out of proportion. What do you want again?
DAMO: LOL U SUX I WANT EVERYTHING TO BE PERFECT ZOMG?!
WM: ....
Whenever we debate about voting methods, it's like:
WM: Hey guys, I think it would be better if *lists a few random choices here*
Damo: LOL *takes one from the list and makes a ridiculous parody at it, nitpicking at the tiniest flaws that will probably never show up* IS TEH SUXXOR U NUB
WM: Alright Damo, that's a perfectly legitimate point of view, but I think you're blowing things out of proportion. What do you want again?
DAMO: LOL U SUX I WANT EVERYTHING TO BE PERFECT ZOMG?!
WM: ....
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Fearmongering bullshit. If anything the electoral college makes small states even less signifigant. Bush did not win the electoral college in 2000 because of small states. He won it because of large states. The winner-take-all formula HEAVILY favors large states.
Not really.
Stupid argument not worth refuting.
I agree with this, and it appears to be your first attempt to actually debate the issue, instead of restoring to childish name-calling and the like. Unfortunately, it was to be short-lived.
Why not refute it?
The reason I support term-limits is simple: people are stupid. Once a representative is elected, they're likely to be re-elected regardless of their performance record. A term limit is not only a check on government power, it is also a check on voter stupidity. Until people become more involved in governing (unlikely to happen soon), I believe such term limits are necessary.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
In a system in which we vote for the person instead of the party, all too often the candidates are decided based on who has the best smile, and who is most famaliar. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. The house of representatives is unrepresentative swill as it stands. I'd like to have it more partisan so that people would be forced to vote on issues and change rather than on how friendly a guy seems to be.
That's kind of a big thing for me to admit, because I used to think that the system should be entirely non-partisan and parties shouldn't even be listed. But the way things seem to be turning out, all that's happening is that people are going to the polls and voting for people they don't seem to know anything about one way or the other. In partisan system, they could at least check with party, instead of how it is now, where the candidates (especially local ones) are elected by coin toss.
Naturally, if you'd like to split your ticket, I think you should have all the freedom in the world to do so. But there should rarely be a time whenever you agree with one persons platform and also want to cancel it out by voting for someone whos against it.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Lame try. You make statements and back them up with nothing.....real weak dude. Elections always, I repeat, ALWAYS, limit terms. If you don't get re-elected your term has been limited. This is a fact not an argument. You cannot refute it.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Voting on issues is a prejudice on your part. Lots and lots of people voted for Bush based on the issues only to have Bush prove that the issues don't mean shit when the person making the decisions on them is incompetent.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I disagree. Most people who voted for Bush didn't know him one way or the other. They voted for him because they'd like to have a beer with him. Welcome to personality, issueless politics.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
History lesson for Watermark: Thomas Jefferson did not beat John Adams in 1800 because of some great triumph of democracy over the Republic. That, in time, became the result of his election as well as the eventual collapse of the Federalist Party. Jefferson won because his electoral votes were inflated (3/5 Clause). Check out John Ferling's "Adams vs. Jefferson" if you want to read up on it.
Had there been no 3/5 Clause, or had Adams prevailed in spite of it, there would not have been a successful populist movement towards democracy. At least, not at the time. Another positive is that it would not have culminated in the election of Andrew Jackson, which is really when things began to spiral out of control...
Had there been no 3/5 Clause, or had Adams prevailed in spite of it, there would not have been a successful populist movement towards democracy. At least, not at the time. Another positive is that it would not have culminated in the election of Andrew Jackson, which is really when things began to spiral out of control...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What? I didn't say he did. My reference was to the tie in the electoral college.
The 3/5ths clause was utterly retarded, and another one of the worst flaws in our constitution.
You try to make a perfeect system that's a balance between your desired kingship and democracy. In fact, you are just concentrating power in the hands of the plurality. They don't even have to consult the various minorities, and they wield complete power. It is dictatorship of the plurality.
Dictatorship of the majority would be far rarer because it is very rare that a majority ever actually agrees on one thing. The only time there is a problem is whenever everyone is in absolute agreement (the most outrageous things are always proposed in unanimity). And your system would have fallen long before a majority based system in that case anyway.
Systems can be designed to resist democracy, not be immune to it. And the best way to resist the bad parts of democracy is to ensure individual rights, not take democracy out of the mix.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
In that case, it was not a flaw in the EC, but in representation. My "perfect mix of kingship and democracy" is precisely what a free republic is, and what the Founders designed. It had an achilles heel, and that was slavery. Nor were they blind to the possible emergence of democracy. It is one reason why some predicted that it would not last more than 3 generations.
My grief is in the way that the republic failed. Over time it could easily have just evolved into a democracy, while retaining the values America was founded on (natural rights, republican virtue, Christianity, etc.). Instead, the mutilation commenced quickly (thanks in large part to the enormous appetite of the South for control), reform was made impossible, and it culminated in the Civil War. I also wonder if anything could have been salvaged if the North had just said "fuck it" and not done anything about secession.
My grief is in the way that the republic failed. Over time it could easily have just evolved into a democracy, while retaining the values America was founded on (natural rights, republican virtue, Christianity, etc.). Instead, the mutilation commenced quickly (thanks in large part to the enormous appetite of the South for control), reform was made impossible, and it culminated in the Civil War. I also wonder if anything could have been salvaged if the North had just said "fuck it" and not done anything about secession.
S
starwolf
Guest
should just be done by votes over all, that would be a fairer system.