The 2012 Electoral College state of play

PostmodernProphet said:
I believe they are aware of it, they simply were in favor of him stealing it and disappointed it didn't work.....
Click to expand...

Well, ask one what the underlying issue was, and what the SC ruled on....they won't have a clue.....

except for the pinheads who are at this moment googling like madmen to see if they can comment...
 
Dungheap, the reason why we have an electoral college is that the US is a collection of states, united by a weak federal government. It was never meant to be what your masters have made it out to be.
 
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...
Try learning something before you "engage in normal conversation". And the complaint about ad homs is nothing less than a huge hypocritical laugh coming from you.

I was not talking about prime ministers. Prime ministers are a significantly different type of executive than president. For one, prime ministeres are rarely the top executive, even if the top executive may be more ceremonial than functional.

I am talking about the selection of presidents of constitutional republics. Most of them are selected by parliament. Several countries have both a president AND a prime minister. They are selected by different means, the prime minister as you described, the president by the parliament with and without the formality of a popular vote. A very few are elected by direct vote. Of note, if you take a survey of presidents elected by direct popular vote, they are invariably figureheads with the real executive power invested in the prime minister, whom is NOT elected by direct vote. (Question: how does one become leader of the party, a needed factor in becoming prime minister? It ain't by direct vote.)

Yes, the College we use is unique in that it COMBINES popular vote with representational selection. The vast majority of the time the College reflects the popular vote. Once in a great while, it does not. Can you name the total number of times in 56 presidential elections when the popular vote was not reflected by the College vote? Only a couple other countries have a combined approach, and they have a much higher percentage of times when the popular vote is not reflected by their parliamentary vote.

Of course, we could do it like other countries, since our way is so fucked up. Would you rather we had simple representational selection as most countries do when selecting their top executive? Would you prefer the current House of Representatives had the final say when we select the next president in November 2012?

Personally, I like our system. It gives greater power to the voice of the people than most systems while still balancing the differential between population based and regional based politics.
 
Good Luck said:
Try learning something before you "engage in normal conversation". And the complaint about ad homs is nothing less than a huge hypocritical laugh coming from you.

I was not talking about prime ministers. Prime ministers are a significantly different type of executive than president. For one, prime ministeres are rarely the top executive, even if the top executive may be more ceremonial than functional.

I am talking about the selection of presidents of constitutional republics. Most of them are selected by parliament. Several countries have both a president AND a prime minister. They are selected by different means, the prime minister as you described, the president by the parliament with and without the formality of a popular vote. A very few are elected by direct vote. Of note, if you take a survey of presidents elected by direct popular vote, they are invariably figureheads with the real executive power invested in the prime minister, whom is NOT elected by direct vote. (Question: how does one become leader of the party, a needed factor in becoming prime minister? It ain't by direct vote.)
Click to expand...

Well, you said "executive" and appeared to be describing parliamentary governments

Good Luck said:
Yes, the College we use is unique in that it COMBINES popular vote with representational selection. The vast majority of the time the College reflects the popular vote. Once in a great while, it does not. Can you name the total number of times in 56 presidential elections when the popular vote was not reflected by the College vote? Only a couple other countries have a combined approach, and they have a much higher percentage of times when the popular vote is not reflected by their parliamentary vote.
Click to expand...

OK, so the vast majority of the time the college follows popular election. My simple proposal is for the college to be done away with and the popular vote to be the mechanism by which the president is elected.

And I will say that comparing the one country with an electoral college with elections every four years to every election in every other country in the world is not a fair comparison. The sample size for the US is 44 elections. For the rest of the world its a whole hell of a lot more than that.

Good Luck said:
Of course, we could do it like other countries, since our way is so fucked up. Would you rather we had simple representational selection as most countries do when selecting their top executive? Would you prefer the current House of Representatives had the final say when we select the next president in November 2012?

Personally, I like our system. It gives greater power to the voice of the people than most systems while still balancing the differential between population based and regional based politics.
Click to expand...

Or we just have a national popular vote.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Well, you said "executive" and appeared to be describing parliamentary governments

OK, so the vast majority of the time the college follows popular election. My simple proposal is for the college to be done away with and the popular vote to be the mechanism by which the president is elected.

And I will say that comparing the one country with an electoral college with elections every four years to every election in every other country in the world is not a fair comparison. The sample size for the US is 44 elections. For the rest of the world its a whole hell of a lot more than that.

Or we just have a national popular vote.
Click to expand...
Like I said LEARN something. Just ONE little, tiny, REAL fact of the history of the United States government.

First, the term executive applies to more than just parliamentary governments. You know, like OURS?

Second, as has been explained, using a strictly popular vote will upset the balance between our population based political system and the regional based system. In short, high population states can - and would - run roughshod over the lower population states - which would in turn lead to all kinds of domestic strife, as well as economic upheaval along the lines of those which eventually led to the Civil War. Do try to remember, this is a Constitutional REPUBLIC we live in - and for a purpose. We are NOT a democracy, never HAVE been a democracy, and if you look at the historical fate of democracies, we do not WANT to be a democracy.
 
Good Luck said:
Like I said LEARN something. Just ONE little, tiny, REAL fact of the history of the United States government.*First, the term executive applies to more than just parliamentary governments. You know, like OURS?*Second, as has been explained, using a strictly popular vote will upset the balance between our population based political system and the regional based system. In short, high population states can - and would - run roughshod over the lower population states - which would in turn lead to all kinds of domestic strife, as well as economic upheaval along the lines of those which eventually led to the Civil War. Do try to remember, this is a Constitutional REPUBLIC we live in - and for a purpose. We are NOT a democracy, never HAVE been a democracy, and if you look at the historical fate of democracies, we do not WANT to be a democracy.
Click to expand...

Why don't Republicans trust the American people?
 
Good Luck said:
Like I said LEARN something. Just ONE little, tiny, REAL fact of the history of the United States government.

First, the term executive applies to more than just parliamentary governments. You know, like OURS?
Click to expand...

Look, dickhead. You said "executives," then I discussed prime ministers and then you said you were talking about "presidents" not "prime ministers." Make up your fucking mind. If you mean presidents and not prime ministers, say "presidents" not "executives."

And again, I don't give a shit about the history aspect. If we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't have the electoral college. Inertia is not a good reason to keep it. Nor is the fact that the process favors the political party you support.

Good Luck said:
Second, as has been explained, using a strictly popular vote will upset the balance between our population based political system and the regional based system. In short, high population states can - and would - run roughshod over the lower population states - which would in turn lead to all kinds of domestic strife, as well as economic upheaval along the lines of those which eventually led to the Civil War. Do try to remember, this is a Constitutional REPUBLIC we live in - and for a purpose. We are NOT a democracy, never HAVE been a democracy, and if you look at the historical fate of democracies, we do not WANT to be a democracy.
Click to expand...

But as you said, the popular vote has been divergent from the electoral college only three times. So I don't really see this threat to domestic tranquility that you think would occur. You really think that if the popular vote determined those three elections the country would have entered another Civil War? That's asinine.

What's more, shifting to a popular vote for president wouldn't suddenly change the basic structure of our government. We'd still be a Constitutional Republic. We'd just have a sensible means of electing the president.

Lastly, the thing that you seem to completely overlook is the fact that the electoral college doesn't require the states to award their electors in any particular manner at all. In fact, the legislature of any state could decide to award its electors regardless of the popular vote in its state. As I said previously, it is a testament to the wisdom of the state legislatures that the process hasn't devolved into complete chaos, but I think it is only a matter of time before a we reach the point where states have divergent systems that totally fuck the process. PA is already starting down this road and I'm sure that other states will follow. It's not that big a deal when you're talking about Maine, but when large states tinker with the process (and there is nothing to stop them constitutionally) your more likely to see the domestic strife you're concerned about than you would get with a national popular vote.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Look, dickhead. You said "executives," then I discussed prime ministers and then you said you were talking about "presidents" not "prime ministers." Make up your fucking mind. If you mean presidents and not prime ministers, say "presidents" not "executives."
Click to expand...
As typical for lack brains as yourself, the point rises completely out of your reach, and you blame the messenger for your idiocy. YOU were the one who focused on prime ministers because the term "executive" confused you sorry excuse for a brain. I mentioned EXECUTIVES as a point. They are NOT legislators. The legislator's job is to represent the interests of their constituency. The executive's job is to run the government. Two very different jobs, so WORLD WIDE (since your type are the ones typically so concerned with how the rest of the world does things) executive positions are separated in some manner from the popular vote. You claim (erroneously, as usual) that prime ministers are selected by popular vote. Wrong. The PARTY is selected by popular vote, and the head of the party becomes prime minister. Missing from your popular vote theory is how the person became head of their party. It is NOT through popular vote, therefore there is a barrier between the popular vote which selects the party, and the procedure (which differs between nations except popular voter is rarely included) which selects the head of the party. As such, the deciding factor in who becomes prime minister is not the popular vote. This is more true in parliaments because people will rarely cross party lines to vote for an opposing party just because of the leader in an opposing party. People change parties because they are dissatisfied with the party.

Presidents, which we have, are different from prime ministers. In most constitutional republics, the president is selected without ANY type of popular vote whatsoever. Most common is selection by the legislative body, be it a congress or a parliament. In legislative bodies comprised of two houses, the lower house is most often the body which selects the president, which brings the selection somewhat closer to the people, since the people select by direct vote the membership of the lower house. In some constitutional republics, a popular vote is held, but the function is closer to our primaries than a general election, and the final selection is still made by the legislative body.

David St. Hubbins said:
And again, I don't give a shit about the history aspect.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. That is the mark of an asininely stupid submoronic imbecile trying to be politically active. There is a reason that historical aspects of previous governments are important, but you don't care because your opinion is correct, and the combined opinions of the 55 delegates and 215 secretaries and assistants who drafted and finalized the Constitution were fucked in the head. Talk of your overblown egos completely unsupported by anything resembling honest cognition.

David St. Hubbins said:
If we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't have the electoral college. Inertia is not a good reason to keep it. Nor is the fact that the process favors the political party you support.
Click to expand...
Since the reasons for the electoral college are as valid today as they were when the college was designed as our selection process, it would very likely be included - or at least something like it. The fact is that the vast majority governments in democratic-style societies have some type of barrier between popular will and the selection of their primary - and sometimes even secondary executive. There is a reason for that. Or are you now going to accuse the entire world of operating by inertia? Of course, not caring (as in totally and completely ignorant) about those reasons, you come to a stupid conclusion that it is not needed. The entire world, with a few exceptions, are wrong and you are right.

David St. Hubbins said:
But as you said, the popular vote has been divergent from the electoral college only three times. So I don't really see this threat to domestic tranquility that you think would occur. You really think that if the popular vote determined those three elections the country would have entered another Civil War? That's asinine.
Click to expand...
Whatever. Since history bears no relevance in your world of deliberate ignorance, I doubt a history lesson will do you any good on the causes of the Civil War, and how a popular vote would recreate the conditions. But since others with brains might benefit, the concern is of one group of states taking political control over another group, to the first's advantage and the second's detriment and subjugation. This is EXACTLY one of the issues the Constitution was designed to prevent, by balancing powers between high populated states and low populated states. It is one of the primary reasons for the Great Compromise, which created a two-house congress, one whose membership is based on population, the other giving equal representation of the states. In the Civil War, the Northern states gained and used a political majority advantage in the House of Representatives to support economic policies beneficial to the Northern industrial economy, and detrimental to the South's slave and agricultural economy. The claim of the North was they wanted to end slavery in the U.S. But there was far more to it than that, with the North basically treating the agricultural South as serfs in their fields. The end result is the South rebelled against the entire package.

A move to select the president by popular vote would create the exact same situation, only worse. We already have upset the power balance by making Senators subject to popular vote, thus shifting their job from representing their states to representing the people of their states. Add in the power of the WH being made totally subject to high population states, and the low population states will end up being subjugated. History DOES repeat itself given the opportunity, which is why knowledge of history is very relevant to the issue. You may not CARE about the historical aspects, but that just shows what a submoronic head-up-the-donkey's-ass hack you are.

David St. Hubbins said:
What's more, shifting to a popular vote for president wouldn't suddenly change the basic structure of our government. We'd still be a Constitutional Republic. We'd just have a sensible means of electing the president.
Click to expand...
Dead wrong. Completely, totally, ignorantly wrong. We'd end up with a federal government TOTALLY selected by high population centers, with the low population centers completely at their (nonexistent) mercy. Again, it HAS happened before. We would no longer be a republic, we'd be a constitutional democracy. (We're barely a republic as it is, since they took away the states representation and gave it to popular vote.)

David St. Hubbins said:
Lastly, the thing that you seem to completely overlook is the fact that the electoral college doesn't require the states to award their electors in any particular manner at all. In fact, the legislature of any state could decide to award its electors regardless of the popular vote in its state. As I said previously, it is a testament to the wisdom of the state legislatures that the process hasn't devolved into complete chaos, but I think it is only a matter of time before a we reach the point where states have divergent systems that totally fuck the process. PA is already starting down this road and I'm sure that other states will follow. It's not that big a deal when you're talking about Maine, but when large states tinker with the process (and there is nothing to stop them constitutionally) your more likely to see the domestic strife you're concerned about than you would get with a national popular vote.
Click to expand...
Yes, the states can divide their delegates any way they wish. The Constitution quite deliberately put that specific power in the hands of the states. That alone should be a clue. Yet for 224 years and 56 presidential election cycles most states have consistently gone with the current system. That is far more than just inertia - it is not like they were required from the start to go with a winner-take-all system. Yet they did so, consistently, between 13 states with significantly differing views of government, and significantly differing opinions on the relation of the states to the federal government. That should be another clue. (Oh, I forgot, you don't care about the historical aspects. That might require actual thinking.)

The system remains in place because it makes sense. Except of course, when history does not matter. When history does not matter, whiny ignorant twits can use their drug induced hallucinations to create any society they wish, and everyone will get along and sing by the river while eating lotus flowers. The problem is when history does not matter, societies have a nasty tendency to repeat the same mistakes made by other, failed societies - a direction we're sadly headed because too many donkey-shit-brained and elephant-shit-brained assholes suddenly think history does not matter.
 
Last edited:
And yet now that the GOP is worried that Perry might lose, they are changing the rules in Pennsylvania and discouraging voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top