VP picks

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:05 pm

yellow m&m wrote: I agree with Nanti. Even if there are a few Mormon democrats, they won't affect much in Utah.

But I do like changing the system. I know that the electoral collage has been very useful, but I wonder if there is a way to do a popular vote, 100%. A purer democracy, perhaps.

Or at least electoral college votes that are based off the actual results than winner take all.

Tao · Post by **Tao** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:21 pm

But remember the other main reason for the electoral college was to avoid a pure democracy. The founding fathers were mistrustful of the masses having total control, just as each branch of the national government has checks, the electoral college was set in place as a check against misuse by the masses. Before we can effectively argue for removing it, we must establish that all of it's purposes have been fulfilled.

Tao · Post by **Tao** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:22 pm

Nanti-SARRMM wrote: Or at least electoral college votes that are based off the actual results than winner take all.

I think Nebraska has this ability. I seem to recall half the state voting one way and the other half voting the other in a previous presidential election.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:23 pm

I would argue that it hasn't fulfilled that purpose in recent history (if ever) anyway, and that if it attempted to, there would be a huge outcry and I am willing to bet that it would be immediately abolished.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:25 pm

Tao wrote:But remember the other main reason for the electoral college was to avoid a pure democracy. The founding fathers were mistrustful of the masses having total control, just as each branch of the national government has checks, the electoral college was set in place as a check against misuse by the masses. Before we can effectively argue for removing it, we must establish that all of it's purposes have been fulfilled.

So basically to serve as a buffer in case the masses go crazy and want to vote in some weird way?

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:33 am

yellow m&m wrote:
Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
sqrt(-1) wrote:Oh come on! I know a couple Mormon democrats! LOL!
Against how many republicans? With a winner take all electoral system?
I agree with Nanti. Even if there are a few Mormon democrats, they won't affect much in Utah.

But I do like changing the system. I know that the electoral collage has been very useful, but I wonder if there is a way to do a popular vote, 100%. A purer democracy, perhaps.

FYI... America is not a democracy... it's a republic.

Post by **bobtheenchantedone** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:36 am

Isn't it a democratic republic?

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:47 am

That is probably the most accurate descriptor.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:48 am

bobtheenchantedone wrote:Isn't it a democratic republic?

Technically it's a consitutional federal republic (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:48 am

orb360 wrote:
bobtheenchantedone wrote:Isn't it a democratic republic?
Technically it's a consitutional federal republic (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

Who needs technicalities? Can't we just keep it simple?

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:49 am

xkcd *** wrote: Who needs technicalities? Can't we just keep it simple?

This is the United States, where nothing is simple, especially the elections. We pride ourselves on that. In the words of Colbert; "This election's not over until the supreme court says it is!"

Tao · Post by **Tao** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:17 am

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
Tao wrote:But remember the other main reason for the electoral college was to avoid a pure democracy. The founding fathers were mistrustful of the masses having total control, just as each branch of the national government has checks, the electoral college was set in place as a check against misuse by the masses. Before we can effectively argue for removing it, we must establish that all of it's purposes have been fulfilled.
So basically to serve as a buffer in case the masses go crazy and want to vote in some weird way?

Yeah, that's it exactly. In the last two elections, the popular vote for each major candidate was around 60 million. Say Hollywood teams up with Coke to endorse the latest TV Star as the next president. Sadly, it wouldn't be too hard to picture a scenario where the popular vote calls for putting in a less-than-competent Commander in Chief. (the American Idol voting tally was over 30 million for each of the last two contestants, meaning more people voted for an American Idol than voted for Bush or Kerry.)

Also the electoral voting system helps elections to have a majority. The Constitution has it so if one candidate doesn't get over 50% of the votes, the House of Representatives decides on who the President will be. (Some argue that the founding fathers intended this to be a check against rule by the masses as well.)

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:05 am

But do you really think that the American people would accept intervention by the electoral collage?

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:47 am

Fredjikrang wrote:But do you really think that the American people would accept intervention by the electoral collage?

I made an electoral collage the other day with newspaper clippings!

lol... but on topic... Sure they would, they do all the time.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:48 pm

Not really, not on the scale that Tao is describing.

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:15 pm

I like this saying, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Naazju · Post by **Naazju** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:18 pm

xkcd *** wrote:I like this saying, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Lol!