The 2012 Electoral College state of play

David St. Hubbins said:
Your description of the parliamentary process for selecting a prime minister isn't all that accurate. The party leader of the party receiving the most popular votes becomes prime minister (coallition governments are formed a bit differently, but not much, as the leader of the party receiving the most votes is typically prime minister). Hence, the leader is chosen by popular vote.

Choosing a president by the process we use is unheard of in the rest of the world. It doesn't happen that way.

And you can save the ad homs and lectures. Try being a normal person engaged in a normal conversation. Or are you a dickhead in real life, too?
Click to expand...

No, the leader is not chosen by "popular vote"... Parliament rarely has any political party with a majority, they build coalitions. The leader is selected by the representatives and not by the people voting for the leader.
 
Good Luck said:
Why is that? Are you aware that the founders were quite deliberate in placing the electoral college between the office of President and the popular vote? Do you WANT NY, CA and other high population density areas to practically run this nation, while rural areas get the big blue pickle up the ass? The populists fucked things up bad enough when they put the Senate under the popular vote. Add in the presidency, and the republic turns into a democracy.

Try reading what the founders thought of a populist democracy.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you live. As an urban American.....I'm all for the great big blue pickle up your ass. Keep in mind, what may work where there's more sheep than people is not a realistic plan for running government in places where we actually have people.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Who gives a shit what the founders thought about popular election of the president? The electoral college is stupid and there is no good reason for it.
Click to expand...
That's not true. GL is quite right in that the Electoral college give geographical representation and it prevents the LA, NY, Chigago metro areas from dominating the national election scene. What the map shows is how the so called liberal/conservative political divide is a fallacy. The political divide in this nation is an urban vs rural divide.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and yet, for 200+ years it has worked splendidly......
Click to expand...
Study your history dude. It's precipitated constitutional crises more then once in this nation that were hardly good for this nation. The 2000 electoral debacle set a horrible precedent that could come back to haunt this nation in a very nasty way is just one exampe of how things most certainly didn't work out splendidly and how the majority of this nation were denied fair representation by a quirk of our electoral system and conservative judicial activist on SCOTUS.
 
The map gives a good indication of why Obama isn't in panic mode. All he has to do is secure one of two toss up States. Ohio or Florida, Obama is not particularly popular in either State but both States have Republican governors who are hugely unpopular. Throw in Florida's huge hispanic population and that recent anti-immigrant rhetoric by the GOP has alienated, unneccesarily, large numbers of hispanics then I'd say Obama has a good shot at winning Florida and if he does, he'll win the election. Ohio would be a slighly tougher nut in that Obama is very popular in the urban areas (except Cincinnati....the last great bastion of the anal retentive conservative), has luke warm appeal in suburbia and is despised in rural Ohio but again, win Ohio and Obama wins the election. So that means Ohio and Florida are the two most important States in the upcoming Presidential election. If either parties candidate wins both of those toss up States, then that side will win the election.
 
The GOP is trying to stack the deck in Pennsylvania. Maybe they aren't sure Perry can win there.
 
\(\()/)/ said:
Russia.


Now explain why the Electoral College devised in 1787 is relevant to the population of the nation.


Or are you saying geographic size is a determining factor today?
Click to expand...
Excuse me, I stand corrected. I should have said "Name another democratic constitutional republic as large as us?".

I am not saying that geography should be a determining factor in our presidential elections. I'm merely pointing out the fact that our founding fathers intended for geographical representation to be a part of the presidential election process in order to prevent urban megalopolises, like we have on the east coast, great lakes, Gulf Coast and California coast regions, from dominating the political land scape for the entire nation.

The electoral college does give rural States disproportionate advantages but they are not completely determinitive at all. The electoral college is certainly controversial but with out it those four regions would dominate Presidential Politics and the rest of the nation would be largely ignored.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Excuse me, I stand corrected. I should have said "Name another democratic constitutional republic as large as us?". I am not saying that geography should be a determining factor in our presidential elections. I'm merely pointing out the fact that our founding fathers intended for geographical representation to be a part of the presidential election process in order to prevent urban megalopolises, like we have on the east coast, great lakes, Gulf Coast and California coast regions, from dominating the political land scape for the entire nation. The electoral college does give rural States disproportionate advantages but they are not completely determinitive at all. The electoral college is certainly controversial but with out it those four regions would dominate Presidential Politics and the rest of the nation would be largely ignored.
Click to expand...


Yet the Electoral College was devised largely to diminish the influence of the slave states.


Since we no longer have those - except Wisconsin and Ohio - why can't we have one person one vote, instead of an antiquated system that allows the party in power in a swing state to stack the deck, as the GOP is doing in Pennsylvania?
 
\(\()/)/ said:
Yet the Electoral College was devised largely to diminish the influence of the slave states.


Since we no longer have those - except Wisconsin and Ohio - why can't we have one person one vote, instead of an antiquated system that allows the party in power in a swing state to stack the deck, as the GOP is doing in Pennsylvania?
Click to expand...
That's not true. The electoral college increased the political influence of the Southern slave states. As for representative distribution of the elctoral votes in a State, we can have that. Nebraska does that. Electoral votes in Nebraska are not "winner take all". The other States can ammend their Constitutions to do the same.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not true. The electoral college increased the political influence of the Southern slave states. As for representative distribution of the elctoral votes in a State, we can have that. Nebraska does that. Electoral votes in Nebraska are not "winner take all". The other States can ammend their Constitutions to do the same.
Click to expand...


You are correct.

And that's precisley what the Republicans in Pennsylvania are doing, so as to split the states' electoral votes and swing the election for Perry.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Study your history dude. It's precipitated constitutional crises more then once in this nation that were hardly good for this nation. The 2000 electoral debacle set a horrible precedent that could come back to haunt this nation in a very nasty way is just one exampe of how things most certainly didn't work out splendidly and how the majority of this nation were denied fair representation by a quirk of our electoral system and conservative judicial activist on SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I know crisis have been claimed.....if they actually occurred we obviously survived them.....the 2000 "debacle" was evidence it worked.....the courts were easily able to sort through the process and keep the Democrats from bypassing the law......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Excuse me, I stand corrected. I should have said "Name another democratic constitutional republic as large as us?".

I am not saying that geography should be a determining factor in our presidential elections. I'm merely pointing out the fact that our founding fathers intended for geographical representation to be a part of the presidential election process in order to prevent urban megalopolises, like we have on the east coast, great lakes, Gulf Coast and California coast regions, from dominating the political land scape for the entire nation.

The electoral college does give rural States disproportionate advantages but they are not completely determinitive at all. The electoral college is certainly controversial but with out it those four regions would dominate Presidential Politics and the rest of the nation would be largely ignored.
Click to expand...


When the electoral college was devised, the country wasn't all that big or all that urban.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
When the electoral college was devised, the country wasn't all that big or all that urban.
Click to expand...

Did the Founding Fathers - many of whom owned slaves - want women, the poor and minorities to vote?

No wonder todays' GOP reveres them.
 
Damocles said:
No, the leader is not chosen by "popular vote"... Parliament rarely has any political party with a majority, they build coalitions. The leader is selected by the representatives and not by the people voting for the leader.
Click to expand...

I didn't say leaders are selected by a majority, I said the leader is the leader of the party receiving the most popular votes. This is generally true of coalition governments.
 
s
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not true. GL is quite right in that the Electoral college give geographical representation and it prevents the LA, NY, Chigago metro areas from dominating the national election scene. What the map shows is how the so called liberal/conservative political divide is a fallacy. The political divide in this nation is an urban vs rural divide.
Click to expand...

I feel it exactly the opposite....the metro areas of almost any given state have the advantage of the rest of the states population....

The bigger the city, the more it is dominated by the liberal/Democrat side of the equation....and their number advantage takes ALL the electoral votes to their side.....

At least with a proportional vote, the rural more conservative people would still have a voice but probably not the loudest voice in the state....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I know crisis have been claimed.....if they actually occurred we obviously survived them.....the 2000 "debacle" was evidence it worked.....the courts were easily able to sort through the process and keep the Democrats from bypassing the law......
Click to expand...

Most Democrats don't have a clue what the issues were and how Gore was trying to steal that election....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top