New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-29 04:23pm

Perhaps this is too complex a thought, but people in this thread do realize that 'Slippery Slope' is not merely fallacious thinking, but the name of a Fallacy? And people do realize that that means anything based around a slippery slope is completely invalid, right?

Oy. The Electoral college serves no useful purpose other than stroking the egos of small-population states. It, and several 'We must protect small states!' measures from early on are perpetuating a number of ridiculous things in this country(Like how several military construction contracts require the parts to be made in a large number of seperate states, to satisfy Congressmen and hike up the price.).

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-29 04:28pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Perhaps I phrased that wrong. I didn't mean it would be basis to legally leave the union, but it alleviates an excuse to leave.
And a strict dress code for women helps alleviate reasons for rape, but it's an ass-backwards way of thinking...

Now that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-29 04:29pm

SirNitram wrote:It, and several 'We must protect small states!' measures from early on are perpetuating a number of ridiculous things in this country

Are you referring to the US Senate?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-29 04:32pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:
SirNitram wrote:It, and several 'We must protect small states!' measures from early on are perpetuating a number of ridiculous things in this country
Are you referring to the US Senate?

Is the Senate the one where two seats are guaranteed for every state? That specific rule is what I'm talking about.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 04:35pm

SirNitram wrote:Oy. The Electoral college serves no useful purpose other than stroking the egos of small-population states.

Says the man who lives in WV

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 04:37pm

SirNitram wrote:
Phil Skayhan wrote:
SirNitram wrote:It, and several 'We must protect small states!' measures from early on are perpetuating a number of ridiculous things in this country
Are you referring to the US Senate?
Is the Senate the one where two seats are guaranteed for every state? That specific rule is what I'm talking about.

Yeah, it is. And again, that was (and still is among some circles) a major states' rights issue. But I don't see how that hurts anything, at least not as much as the electoral college.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-29 04:50pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Is the Senate the one where two seats are guaranteed for every state? That specific rule is what I'm talking about.
Yeah, it is. And again, that was (and still is among some circles) a major states' rights issue. But I don't see how that hurts anything, at least not as much as the electoral college.

Actually, it represents a greater disparity in lawmaking. In the Senate, Vermont, the least populated state, carries as much power as California, the most populous. Whereas for the Electoral College, VT has only 5% of the influence of Ca.

Do you think it's a bad idea to institute measures that prevent the larger states from running roughshod over the smaller ones? Without the Senate, what would prevent the House from doing that?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-29 05:07pm

Phil Skayhan wrote: Actually, it represents a greater disparity in lawmaking. In the Senate, Vermont, the least populated state, carries as much power as California, the most populous. Whereas for the Electoral College, VT has only 5% of the influence of Ca.

Do you think it's a bad idea to institute measures that prevent the larger states from running roughshod over the smaller ones? Without the Senate, what would prevent the House from doing that?

Guess what? We live in a Representative Constituational Democracy and one of the traits of such a system is that the majority opinion rules so long as it doesn't infringe on certain guaranteed rights. You may not like it, but that is the principle behind a Democracy.

Besides, how does the electoral college negate this? All it does is disenfranchise the voters who don't live in swing states (thus making their vote next to useless) and gives an enormous amount of consideration to the very few. What purpose does this serve exactly?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 05:09pm

Well that's why we should all be centrists. That way we could vote the other way out of spite when one party or the other takes our state for granted. *Points to sig.* That'd show 'em!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-29 05:19pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Well that's why we should all be centrists. That way we could vote the other way out of spite when one party or the other takes our state for granted. *Points to sig.* That'd show 'em!

Oh Christ would you cut it out with this "centrist" crap? It's not funny anymore.

Phil Skayhan wrote:Actually, it represents a greater disparity in lawmaking. In the Senate, Vermont, the least populated state, carries as much power as California, the most populous. Whereas for the Electoral College, VT has only 5% of the influence of Ca.

But California is guaranteed to go Democrat. So are many larger-population states. The smaller ones are guaranteed to be Republican. Only a handful of "battleground" or "swing" states actually matter in an election.

Do you think it's a bad idea to institute measures that prevent the larger states from running roughshod over the smaller ones? Without the Senate, what would prevent the House from doing that?

So instead we let swing states run roughshod over everyone else? How is that a better situation? Swing states are always larger states with more electoral votes anyway.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 05:24pm

Durandal wrote:Swing states are always larger states with more electoral votes anyway.

California? 55 electoral votes and solidly Democrat.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-29 05:40pm

Supporters of the electoral college always claim that direct presidential elctions would allow big metroplitan areas to have far more influence than rural areas. To that I say: Good! All the stupidest people live in pissant little towns anyway, to hell with 'em!

Elitism: because you do want the best people to run the country, right?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-29 05:44pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Durandal wrote:Swing states are always larger states with more electoral votes anyway.
California? 55 electoral votes and solidly Democrat.

I never said that California was a swing state. I said that swing states are always larger states with more electoral votes, like Florida and Ohio. For example, Montana is never going to be a swing state.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-29 05:47pm

Andrew J. wrote:Supporters of the electoral college always claim that direct presidential elctions would allow big metroplitan areas to have far more influence than rural areas. To that I say: Good! All the stupidest people live in pissant little towns anyway, to hell with 'em!

Elitism: because you do want the best people to run the country, right?

I hope you're fucking joking because if you're not, that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course metropolitian areas should have more representation moron, THEY HAVE A FAR GREATER POPULATION. And your whole metro vs. rural thing is bullshit anyways since rural and metro areas are not seperated by state lines.

I'm sure that in your fantasy world simply living in the boondocks makes you think you are entitled to have your vote worth more then those that live in cities, but that is a morally indefensible position. One man, one vote, remember?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 05:49pm

The Kernel wrote:
Andrew J. wrote:Supporters of the electoral college always claim that direct presidential elctions would allow big metroplitan areas to have far more influence than rural areas. To that I say: Good! All the stupidest people live in pissant little towns anyway, to hell with 'em!

Elitism: because you do want the best people to run the country, right?

I hope you're fucking joking because if you're not, that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course metropolitian areas should have more representation moron, THEY HAVE A FAR GREATER POPULATION. And your whole metro vs. rural thing is bullshit anyways since rural and metro areas are not seperated by state lines.

I'm sure that in your fantasy world simply living in the boondocks makes you think you are entitled to have your vote worth more then those that live in cities, but that is a morally indefensible position. One man, one vote, remember?

Erm... You just agreed with him and chewed him out for it.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-08-29 05:49pm

I say get rid of it. Right now, if you're a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Texas, you don't count for shit.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-08-29 05:58pm

Perhaps this is too complex a thought, but people in this thread do realize that 'Slippery Slope' is not merely fallacious thinking, but the name of a Fallacy? And people do realize that that means anything based around a slippery slope is completely invalid, right?

What if you were discussing an actual slippery slope?

Seriously though, you can't automatically rule out the possibility of one small change allowing something to change a lot later. That's just silly.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-29 06:01pm

Rogue 9 wrote: Erm... You just agreed with him and chewed him out for it.

Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect on a message board but from what I gathered he is saying that metropolitan dwellers are elitists for wanting their vote to count for "more" then the rural people which is bullshit. If he meant something else, he can correct me.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 06:04pm

Supporters of the electoral college always claim that direct presidential elctions would allow big metroplitan areas to have far more influence than rural areas. To that I say: Good! All the stupidest people live in pissant little towns anyway, to hell with 'em!

How is that arguing in favor of counting rural votes for more?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-29 06:06pm

The Kernel wrote:I hope you're fucking joking because if you're not, hat's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course metropolitian areas should have more representation moron, THEY HAVE A FAR GREATER POPULATION. And your whole metro vs. rural thing is bullshit anyways since rural and metro areas are not seperated by state lines.

I'm sure that in your fantasy world simply living in the boondocks makes you think you are entitled to have your vote worth more then those that live in cities, but that is a morally indefensible position. One man, one vote, remember?

I agree with you, really. I just put the smiley at the end so the pro-collegers wouldn't yell at me for wanting to disenfranchising people and thus causing an inevitable slide to tyranny. Thanks for making me blow my cover, jerk.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-29 06:14pm

The Kernel wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: Erm... You just agreed with him and chewed him out for it.
Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect on a message board but from what I gathered he is saying that metropolitan dwellers are elitists for wanting their vote to count for "more" then the rural people which is bullshit. If he meant something else, he can correct me.

They are elitists. I'm an elitist. There's nothing wrong with elitism. People that live in rural areas are stupid. That's all completelty serious. That's what I think. Understand now?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 06:15pm

Andrew J. wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: Erm... You just agreed with him and chewed him out for it.
Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect on a message board but from what I gathered he is saying that metropolitan dwellers are elitists for wanting their vote to count for "more" then the rural people which is bullshit. If he meant something else, he can correct me.
They are elitists. I'm an elitist. There's nothing wrong with elitism. People that live in rural areas are stupid. That's all completelty serious. That's what I think. Understand now?

Okay, now that that's out of the way, sweeping generalization, anyone?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-29 06:22pm

Rogue 9 wrote:They are elitists. I'm an elitist. There's nothing wrong with elitism. People that live in rural areas are stupid. That's all completelty serious. That's what I think. Understand now?

Okay, now that that's out of the way, sweeping generalization, anyone?[/quote]

Yes, the best kind!

To be honest, I was a bit hasty when I replied to The Kernel. I was a bit upset, and I made a generalization, and I'm sorry. (Made me make typos too, dammit.)

Anyway, a few weeks ago there was this thread about intolerance in small towns that either turned into a flamewar or threatened to turn into one, so I really don't want to start that up again.

I also really never intended to say anything serious in this thread. I am not bored enough or angry enough to put any more effort in this. Good night, everybody!

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-08-29 06:23pm

The US is a Republic and the concept of the Electoral College seems to represent part of the base of a Republic. Seems pretty obvious to me, US is Republic and therefore acts as a Republic. Are people calling for a change of government or something?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 06:30pm

Super-Gagme wrote:The US is a Republic and the concept of the Electoral College seems to represent part of the base of a Republic. Seems pretty obvious to me, US is Republic and therefore acts as a Republic. Are people calling for a change of government or something?

The electoral college is an outdated feature peculiar to the American republic. It is not a base feature of all Republics, and virtually every republic in the world bar the United States lacks a comparable feature.