Is the US Electoral System really democratic?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-07 04:12pm

However, let me clarify that it is complete bullshit that if a candidate wins a plurality in a state that he gets all of the EC votes.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-07 04:13pm

Joe wrote:
Oh please, do tell what the necessity of the electoral college is. I'm dying to hear this one.
Do a forum search, I've participated actively and extensively in no less than three electoral college threads and I'm not going to spend the afternoon in another one. I've said my piece many times and you aren't going to change my mind, so I'm not going to waste your time.

There was a time when saying 'Well, I've already posted it and none of you are changing my mind!' was the sole realm of Scooter. I miss that time.

EDIT: There was also a time when I didn't typo. I miss that time too.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-07 04:16pm

Howedar wrote:Without an electoral college, on paper a Californian's vote is worth exactly as much as mine. However, this is the problem: while his vote is worth as much as mine, no pres. candidate will give a flying fuck about the needs of the population outside of the major states because they're fairly inconsequential. So I will be able to vote for whomever I choose with as much sway as Kernel, but I really will have no candidates to choose from who in any way represent or address my needs.

Presidential candidates shouldn't give attention out of proportion to population. That's the point of the vote and democracy.

The whole idea is that they'll pay attention to whichever location and demographics have more people and thus more people in need.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 04:22pm

Howedar wrote:Without an electoral college, on paper a Californian's vote is worth exactly as much as mine. However, this is the problem: while his vote is worth as much as mine, no pres. candidate will give a flying fuck about the needs of the population outside of the major states because they're fairly inconsequential. So I will be able to vote for whomever I choose with as much sway as Kernel, but I really will have no candidates to choose from who in any way represent or address my needs.

Bull-fucking-shit

You still seem to think that Bob from Hicksville is more important that John, Dick and Harry from the City combined. Or have you forgotten that the President is meant to represent ALL the people of the nation, not the intrests of all the groups in the nation.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-07 04:37pm

Joe's Arguments

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 04:45pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Howedar wrote:Without an electoral college, on paper a Californian's vote is worth exactly as much as mine. However, this is the problem: while his vote is worth as much as mine, no pres. candidate will give a flying fuck about the needs of the population outside of the major states because they're fairly inconsequential. So I will be able to vote for whomever I choose with as much sway as Kernel, but I really will have no candidates to choose from who in any way represent or address my needs.
Presidential candidates shouldn't give attention out of proportion to population. That's the point of the vote and democracy.

It's strange how the point becomes completely lost that we do not have a democracy, and we were never meant to have it. We have a republic. The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy. Jefferson, for example, considered it impractical beyond the town level, and moreover, he and the other founding fathers considered it to be nothing more than the tyranny of the mob. A republic has checks on pure deomcracy, and they were meant to keep the rights and interests of the minority from being invariably overidden by the wishes of the majority. I think this was wise and I agree with the founding fathers' sentiments concerning pure democracy. It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 04:46pm

Perinquus wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Howedar wrote:Without an electoral college, on paper a Californian's vote is worth exactly as much as mine. However, this is the problem: while his vote is worth as much as mine, no pres. candidate will give a flying fuck about the needs of the population outside of the major states because they're fairly inconsequential. So I will be able to vote for whomever I choose with as much sway as Kernel, but I really will have no candidates to choose from who in any way represent or address my needs.
Presidential candidates shouldn't give attention out of proportion to population. That's the point of the vote and democracy.
It's strange how the point becomes completely lost that we do not have a democracy, and we were never meant to have it. We have a republic. The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy. Jefferson, for example, considered it impractical beyond the town level, and moreover, he and the other founding fathers considered it to be nothing more than the tyranny of the mob. A republic has checks on pure deomcracy, and they were meant to keep the rights and interests of the minority from being invariably overidden by the wishes of the majority. I think this was wise and I agree with the founding fathers' sentiments concerning pure democracy. It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.

Of course...because it's better to have minority tyranny...or havent you noticed that you could technically have the president chosen who was opposed by 2/3rds of the people in this stupid system?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-07 04:49pm

Perinquus wrote:It's strange how the point becomes completely lost that we do not have a democracy, and we were never meant to have it. We have a republic. The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy. Jefferson, for example, considered it impractical beyond the town level, and moreover, he and the other founding fathers considered it to be nothing more than the tyranny of the mob. A republic has checks on pure deomcracy, and they were meant to keep the rights and interests of the minority from being invariably overidden by the wishes of the majority. I think this was wise and I agree with the founding fathers' sentiments concerning pure democracy. It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.

Appeal to tradition.

Where's the connecting logic for "mob rule is bad" = "hicks' votes should count more."

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:03pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Of course...because it's better to have minority tyranny...or havent you noticed that you could technically have the president chosen who was opposed by 2/3rds of the people in this stupid system?

Complete strawman. The majority still has its way most of the time. Checks on unlimited democracy in no way means that all the power now goes to the minority, and they are able to tyrannize the majority. This argument is frankly stupid

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-07 05:05pm

Perinquus wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Of course...because it's better to have minority tyranny...or havent you noticed that you could technically have the president chosen who was opposed by 2/3rds of the people in this stupid system?
Complete strawman. The majority still has its way most of the time. Checks on unlimited democracy in no way means that all the power now goes to the minority, and they are able to tyrannize the majority. This argument is frankly stupid

Yours isn't much better. A combination of Appeal to Tradition fallacy(It's how the Founding Father's did it, therefore we should do it too!), with a non-sequitor. Eliminating the EC does not remove the Republic nature of the government, or are you too slow to realize representative's would still be elected?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:05pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Perinquus wrote:It's strange how the point becomes completely lost that we do not have a democracy, and we were never meant to have it. We have a republic. The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy. Jefferson, for example, considered it impractical beyond the town level, and moreover, he and the other founding fathers considered it to be nothing more than the tyranny of the mob. A republic has checks on pure deomcracy, and they were meant to keep the rights and interests of the minority from being invariably overidden by the wishes of the majority. I think this was wise and I agree with the founding fathers' sentiments concerning pure democracy. It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.
Appeal to tradition.

Where's the connecting logic for "mob rule is bad" = "hicks' votes should count more."

Where is the evidence that mob rule is bad? What the fuck cave have you lived in all your life? Ever hear of Jim Crow laws? Segregation? Legalized discrimination? I repeat, it is wise that we have some checks on pure democracy, because what the majority wants is not always a good thing. The founding fathers at least had the wit to recognize this.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 05:08pm

Perinquus wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Of course...because it's better to have minority tyranny...or havent you noticed that you could technically have the president chosen who was opposed by 2/3rds of the people in this stupid system?
Complete strawman. The majority still has its way most of the time. Checks on unlimited democracy in no way means that all the power now goes to the minority, and they are able to tyrannize the majority. This argument is frankly stupid

No more stupid than your bullshit, I just dont couch it in great flowery historical bullshit as you are want to do. Why does making the vote of Bob from Hicksville worth more than the vote of Jim in the City a check on tyranny?

It's rank stupidity, there are checks and balances within the overall system of government. Or, have you forgotten the president does not have supreme power, that the senate, congress and the courts can all weigh in to stop a tyrant?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:14pm

SirNitram wrote:Yours isn't much better. A combination of Appeal to Tradition fallacy(It's how the Founding Father's did it, therefore we should do it too!)...

Another strawman! That's not what I said. I pointed out that they were suspicious of pure democracy, and I gave you the reason why. It's only a appeal to tradition fallacy if I the appeal to tradition constitutes my answer. It didn't. I gave you more than that. I also gave you the reason why they did it - they considered unlimited democracy impractical above town level, and they felt it did not safeguard the rights and interests of the minority.

SirNitram wrote:...with a non-sequitor. Eliminating the EC does not remove the Republic nature of the government, or are you too slow to realize representative's would still be elected?

No slower than you apparently, since you can't fucking read. Illuminatus Primus condemned the electoral college as undemocratic. I merely pointed out that it was not supposed to be.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 05:16pm

Perinquus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Yours isn't much better. A combination of Appeal to Tradition fallacy(It's how the Founding Father's did it, therefore we should do it too!)...
Another strawman! That's not what I said. I pointed out that they were suspicious of pure democracy, and I gave you the reason why. It's only a appeal to tradition fallacy if I the appeal to tradition constitutes my answer. It didn't. I gave you more than that. I also gave you the reason why they did it - they considered unlimited democracy impractical above town level, and they felt it did not safeguard the rights and interests of the minority.

SirNitram wrote:...with a non-sequitor. Eliminating the EC does not remove the Republic nature of the government, or are you too slow to realize representative's would still be elected?
No slower than you apparently, since you can't fucking read. Illuminatus Primus condemned the electoral college as undemocratic. I merely pointed out that it was not supposed to be.

Of course, so what you're doing isnt a fallacy of any sort, just long winded spam...soo much better.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-07 05:16pm

Perinquus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Yours isn't much better. A combination of Appeal to Tradition fallacy(It's how the Founding Father's did it, therefore we should do it too!)...
Another strawman! That's not what I said. I pointed out that they were suspicious of pure democracy, and I gave you the reason why. It's only a appeal to tradition fallacy if I the appeal to tradition constitutes my answer. It didn't. I gave you more than that. I also gave you the reason why they did it - they considered unlimited democracy impractical above town level, and they felt it did not safeguard the rights and interests of the minority.

So it's merely a non-sequitor; eliminating the EC does not create a pure democracy. Thank you for proving you can't follow base logic.

SirNitram wrote:...with a non-sequitor. Eliminating the EC does not remove the Republic nature of the government, or are you too slow to realize representative's would still be elected?
No slower than you apparently, since you can't fucking read. Illuminatus Primus condemned the electoral college as undemocratic. I merely pointed out that it was not supposed to be.

No, you acted like it caused unlimited democracy and then rebutted that unlimited democracy is bad... What's that? Oh yes, a Strawman Fallacy.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-07 05:17pm

Perinquus wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Perinquus wrote:It's strange how the point becomes completely lost that we do not have a democracy, and we were never meant to have it. We have a republic. The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy. Jefferson, for example, considered it impractical beyond the town level, and moreover, he and the other founding fathers considered it to be nothing more than the tyranny of the mob. A republic has checks on pure deomcracy, and they were meant to keep the rights and interests of the minority from being invariably overidden by the wishes of the majority. I think this was wise and I agree with the founding fathers' sentiments concerning pure democracy. It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.
Appeal to tradition.

Where's the connecting logic for "mob rule is bad" = "hicks' votes should count more."
Where is the evidence that mob rule is bad? What the fuck cave have you lived in all your life? Ever hear of Jim Crow laws? Segregation? Legalized discrimination? I repeat, it is wise that we have some checks on pure democracy, because what the majority wants is not always a good thing. The founding fathers at least had the wit to recognize this.

Ok, I'll repeat myself: by what logic do you leap from the concept that "mob rule is a bad thing" to "we must to give more worth to the votes of people in rural regions."

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:21pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Perinquus wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Of course...because it's better to have minority tyranny...or havent you noticed that you could technically have the president chosen who was opposed by 2/3rds of the people in this stupid system?
Complete strawman. The majority still has its way most of the time. Checks on unlimited democracy in no way means that all the power now goes to the minority, and they are able to tyrannize the majority. This argument is frankly stupid
No more stupid than your bullshit, I just dont couch it in great flowery historical bullshit as you are want to do. Why does making the vote of Bob from Hicksville worth more than the vote of Jim in the City a check on tyranny?

Because the interests of rural citizens are very different than those of urbanites. A candidate who is only concerned to campaign in the large population centers will not be as concerned with the interests of the rural population.

Keevan_Colton wrote:It's rank stupidity, there are checks and balances within the overall system of government. Or, have you forgotten the president does not have supreme power, that the senate, congress and the courts can all weigh in to stop a tyrant?

And this means that the rural citizens should not object if their chief executive does not represent their intertests? Your making strawman distortions again. Not representing the interests of a segment of the population is not the same thing as being a tyrant. Checks and balances designed to prevent the one may not prevent the other. The electoral college was designed to do a couple of things. One was prevent the election of demagogues. Another was to ensure that any candidate would find it necessary to concern himself with representing the interests of all the voters, matter whether they lived in large cities or small farming towns.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 05:24pm

The interests of "religious" minorities for example, athiests, are different from those, of for example, christians, therefore the votes of all athiests should be weighed more heavily to ensure their interests are represented.

Welcome to Stupidsville, right next door to Hicksville.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:31pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Perinquus wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: Appeal to tradition.

Where's the connecting logic for "mob rule is bad" = "hicks' votes should count more."
Where is the evidence that mob rule is bad? What the fuck cave have you lived in all your life? Ever hear of Jim Crow laws? Segregation? Legalized discrimination? I repeat, it is wise that we have some checks on pure democracy, because what the majority wants is not always a good thing. The founding fathers at least had the wit to recognize this.
Ok, I'll repeat myself: by what logic do you leap from the concept that "mob rule is a bad thing" to "we must to give more worth to the votes of people in rural regions."

Mob rule is another way of saying tyranny of the majority. If the large population centers are the only parts of the country a candidate is worried about campaigning in, he is going to tailor his campaign, and his policies once elected, to their interests. Their interests are not the same as those living in rural areas. The electoral system ensures that he can't do this. It does so by giving extra weight to the smaller states. Is it perfect? No. But it works, and it has worked for over two hundred years.

You can bitch and moan about how unfair it is all you want. You can just as productively whine about the sun rising in the east. It's not going to change. It would require a two thirds majority of both houses of congress as well as being ratified by three fourths of the states to amend the constitution so as to abolish the EC. And if you think the states with small populations will ever allow that to happen, you are living in a fantasy world. The great compromise was adopted in the first place because the small states would simply not agree to confederate with the large ones in a direct representational scheme. For exactly the same reasons as back then, they won't go along with it any more today, so you may as well quit your bitching and learn to live with it.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:32pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:The interests of "religious" minorities for example, athiests, are different from those, of for example, christians, therefore the votes of all athiests should be weighed more heavily to ensure their interests are represented.

Welcome to Stupidsville, right next door to Hicksville.

That's what the establishment clause was put in teh constitution for stupid.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 05:36pm

Perinquus wrote: That's what the establishment clause was put in teh constitution for stupid.

And the powers of the courts, senate and congress etc are all enshrined too to protect the interests of the people. Yet, you think that people in rural areas need to be counted double as it were, to be fairly represented...

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:36pm

SirNitram wrote: No slower than you apparently, since you can't fucking read. Illuminatus Primus condemned the electoral college as undemocratic. I merely pointed out that it was not supposed to be.

No, you acted like it caused unlimited democracy and then rebutted that unlimited democracy is bad... What's that? Oh yes, a Strawman Fallacy.[/quote]
How is merely pointing out that something is not democratic "acting like it caused unlimited democracy"? Do tell?

I pointed out that this particular element of our government was not democratic. I never even hinted that it was the only one, which is what I would have had to do to portray its removal as causing unlimited democracy. You provided that little leap of logic. The strawman is yours.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-05-07 05:38pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Perinquus wrote: That's what the establishment clause was put in teh constitution for stupid.
And the powers of the courts, senate and congress etc are all enshrined too to protect the interests of the people. Yet, you think that people in rural areas need to be counted double as it were, to be fairly represented...

They aren't when they're electting their representatives in congress. But a congressional representative is supposed to represent the people in his district. The president is supposed to represent the entire nation.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-07 05:39pm

Perinquus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
No slower than you apparently, since you can't fucking read. Illuminatus Primus condemned the electoral college as undemocratic. I merely pointed out that it was not supposed to be.
No, you acted like it caused unlimited democracy and then rebutted that unlimited democracy is bad... What's that? Oh yes, a Strawman Fallacy.
How is merely pointing out that something is not democratic "acting like it caused unlimited democracy"? Do tell?

Probably where you specifically referred to unlimited democracy.

The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy.

It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.

I pointed out that this particular element of our government was not democratic. I never even hinted that it was the only one, which is what I would have had to do to portray its removal as causing unlimited democracy. You provided that little leap of logic. The strawman is yours.

Lies and damned lies. Your reply to the idea the EC is undemocratic is to whine that the Founding Father's were leery of pure democracy.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-07 05:39pm

Perinquus wrote: They aren't when they're electting their representatives in congress. But a congressional representative is supposed to represent the people in his district. The president is supposed to represent the entire nation.

Yes, he is...now, as he represents ALL the people of the nation should they not ALL have an equal say in electing him?