New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

[Keevan_Colton]

Also remember that the EC was NOT originally intended to be a populare vote system. Ot was intended to use the national vote as a guage, advice that was not necessarily to be taken at full value. They did this, because while a person may or may not be intelligent, the vast majority of the population, is, on average,stupid. and may or may not be informed enough to make that decision. essentially, the EC avoids a very damaging form of mob rule.

How?
By using a built in error?
How fucking enlightened.

[MKSheppard]

Wrong. What I said was - and this is rather consistent with my positions if you haven't noticed - that states' rights should not overrule human rights.

Reminds me suspiciously of the old canard that the black man keeps getting "disenfranchised".

I'm a convicted Felon, yet I can vote in Maryland. Why? Because state
law says that I have ONE, ONE chance to redeem myself if I did not
commit an infamous crime (corruption, fraud, bribery, etc). Yet the
Washington Post whines about the high disenfranchisement rate in
Baltimore

As a Minnesotan, my vote counts less than, say, an Alaskan's, a North Dakotan's, a South Dakotan's, basically anybody who lives in a three-EV state has a greater say in who is elected President han I do, because their vote counts for more (and if I vote Democratic and Minnesota goes Republican - not likely, thankfully - then my vote means nothing at all).

I'm a Republican, in Montgomery County, Maryland. Go cry yourself into
this bucket I borrowed from the county republican committee, which
consists of me, two other guys, and a janitor.

[Keevan_Colton]

So you support a system where a huge number of voters votes mean NOTHING because, damnit, that's how we gone done it in the good ol days and we aint got no good reason to be changin' now!.

[MKSheppard]

So you support a system where a huge number of voters votes mean NOTHING because, damnit, that's how we gone done it in the good ol days and we aint got no good reason to be changin' now!.

And the Metric System shall replace the English system by 1980!

[Iceberg]

Wrong. What I said was - and this is rather consistent with my positions if you haven't noticed - that states' rights should not overrule human rights.

Reminds me suspiciously of the old canard that the black man keeps getting "disenfranchised".

Kindly go fuck yourself, Shep.

As a Minnesotan, my vote counts less than, say, an Alaskan's, a North Dakotan's, a South Dakotan's, basically anybody who lives in a three-EV state has a greater say in who is elected President han I do, because their vote counts for more (and if I vote Democratic and Minnesota goes Republican - not likely, thankfully - then my vote means nothing at all).

I'm a Republican, in Montgomery County, Maryland. Go cry yourself into
this bucket I borrowed from the county republican committee, which
consists of me, two other guys, and a janitor.

[/quote]
Which is a further argument against the electoral college anyway: The winner-take-all nature of the EC means that necessarily those voters who did not cast votes for the winning candidate in a state are disenfranchised by the EC.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Also remember that the EC was NOT originally intended to be a populare vote system. Ot was intended to use the national vote as a guage, advice that was not necessarily to be taken at full value. They did this, because while a person may or may not be intelligent, the vast majority of the population, is, on average,stupid. and may or may not be informed enough to make that decision. essentially, the EC avoids a very damaging form of mob rule.

How?
By using a built in error?
How fucking enlightened.

No, by saying "You guys are fucking stupid" and voting opposite of popular vote.

The masses are easily swayed by flashy promises. So to avoid this, the EC was put in place. Part of our system of representative democracy, a republic.

Now it has become a rubber stamp for the popular vote. I will come out an d say right now, I prefer the original.

[Glocksman]

I'm a Republican, in Montgomery County, Maryland.

You must be pretty lonely.
Where's the phone booth that you hold your meetings in?

[Wicked Pilot]

If I may be allowed to play a numbers game realy quick:

Let's say the US is made up of three equal size states, states A, B, and C. State A votes 100% for Candidate #1, while States B & C both vote 51% for Candidate #2 and 49% for Candidate #1. Under the current electorical college setup, Candidate #2 wins the election with only 34% of the people voting for them. That is crap.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So you support a system where a huge number of voters votes mean NOTHING because, damnit, that's how we gone done it in the good ol days and we aint got no good reason to be changin' now!.

No, more like "because mob rule and pure democracy is inherently dangerous"

[Iceberg]

How?
By using a built in error?
How fucking enlightened.

No, by saying "You guys are fucking stupid" and voting opposite of popular vote.[/quote]
So instead of letting the people have the government they want, the EC should install the government of their choice because dammit, they know better?

How elitist of you.

[Keevan_Colton]

Ah, so you support picking a president based on golf handicap, spin the bottle or some other method that doesnt involve all these pesky voters....joy.

Or how large a payoff they can give to those in charge of the EC...then again, that would be a fine libertarian way to choose a head of state so I shouldnt be supirsed .

[Durandal]

Quite frankly, Damien, I like Maryland laws, I don't want to live under either Taxachussets laws or Georgia (PRAISE THE LORD!) laws.

No one is saying you should, dumb-ass.

Reminds me suspiciously of the old canard that the black man keeps getting "disenfranchised".

Again, how the fuck do you come up with this stuff? The electoral college clearly disenfranchises voters in larger states by potentially making their votes count for less than someone in a smaller state, which automatically gets 3 electoral votes.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If I may be allowed to play a numbers game realy quick:

Let's say the US is made up of three equal size states, states A, B, and C. State A votes 100% for Candidate #1, while States B & C both vote 51% for Candidate #2 and 49% for Candidate #1. Under the current electorical college setup, Candidate #2 wins the election with only 34% of the people voting for them. That is crap.

WHich is why the college should not rely soley on the popular vote, and to go back to the representative system it USED to be.

[Keevan_Colton]

If I may be allowed to play a numbers game realy quick:

Let's say the US is made up of three equal size states, states A, B, and C. State A votes 100% for Candidate #1, while States B & C both vote 51% for Candidate #2 and 49% for Candidate #1. Under the current electorical college setup, Candidate #2 wins the election with only 34% of the people voting for them. That is crap.

Welcome to the scenario I proposed

[Iceberg]

So you support a system where a huge number of voters votes mean NOTHING because, damnit, that's how we gone done it in the good ol days and we aint got no good reason to be changin' now!.

No, more like "because mob rule and pure democracy is inherently dangerous"

Direct popular election of the head of state is neither mob rule nor pure democracy. I'm getting really disgusted with this blatant false dilemma fallacy from people who should know better. The fact that many, many successful, Western democratic republics exist where the head of government and/or head of state is elected in a direct popular election should tell you that this is a pure lie, that direct popular election of the President is possible and will work, and that we are decades overdue for a change in the way the President is elected.

Pure democracy, remember, is a system wherein every person has one vote on every issue, regardless of how well or how poorly informed they are on that issue.

[Keevan_Colton]

WHich is why the college should not rely soley on the popular vote, and to go back to the representative system it USED to be.

Oh, so do you mean a popular vote with built in error?
Fucking hell, what is it with this idiocy that it just wont die?
Hammer Horror never had anything this resiliant to being put down.

[Durandal]

Deleted Shep's latest post (EDIT: Now latest two posts). I'm serious, you little shit. Either start contributing, or I'll just keep happily deleting your shit.

[Glocksman]

"We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers."

As well we should, considering the fact that we need somewhere to store the waste from nuclear plants that are all over the United States,including New York.

Personally, I wonder if the Times would have been half as concerned about this if the 2000 election results were reversed and it was Gore who won in the EC and Bush winning the popular vote?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ah, so you support picking a president based on golf handicap, spin the bottle or some other method that doesnt involve all these pesky voters....joy.

Or how large a payoff they can give to those in charge of the EC...then again, that would be a fine libertarian way to choose a head of state so I shouldnt be supirsed .

Strawman.

You involve the voters, think of it as a non-binding referendum.

EC: well the voters want Bush
EC2: Yeah, but have you seen his policy? The man is slick, but his ideas are... well dangerous. They will collapse our economy and lead us to war.

An electorate is like a jury. A slick lawyer can present a Chewbacka(sp) defense and convince a jury of anything. Same in politics.

[MKSheppard]

You must be pretty lonely.
Where's the phone booth that you hold your meetings in?

Phone booth? So that's how the Republican Committee of NYC meets!

[Keevan_Colton]

Personally, I wonder if the Times would have been half as concerned about this if the 2000 election results were reversed and it was Gore who won in the EC and Bush winning the popular vote?

Another appeal to motive fallacy, is the VRWC shop running a special on them this week?

[MKSheppard]

Deleted Shep's latest post (EDIT: Now latest two posts). I'm serious, you little shit. Either start contributing, or I'll just keep happily deleting your shit.

Blow me. I am contributing.

Which is a further argument against the electoral college anyway: The

winner-take-all nature of the EC means that necessarily those voters who did not cast votes for

the winning candidate in a state are disenfranchised by the EC.

You're a stupid fuckwit; Maryland politics operates on the kind of system
you want. As a result, Baltimore has controlled MD politics for almost
a hundred years; deciding who gets elected governor. Now that the
balance of power is shifting to the Maryland Suburbs of Washington,
the Baltimoreans are screaming

**************

Again, how the fuck do you come up with this stuff?

When Icey started his canard about "human rights" trumping state
laws, I had to reply about that, one of the most burning "human
rights" issues currently pushed by activists.

The electoral college clearly disenfranchises voters in larger states by potentially

making their votes count for less than someone in a smaller state, which automatically gets 3

electoral votes.

We have the system you so desire in Maryland, and as a result, Baltimore has controlled the

entire state for over a hundred years. Yes, lets sign our futures away to those whackloon

Californians.

[Iceberg]

Ah, so you support picking a president based on golf handicap, spin the bottle or some other method that doesnt involve all these pesky voters....joy.

Or how large a payoff they can give to those in charge of the EC...then again, that would be a fine libertarian way to choose a head of state so I shouldnt be supirsed .

You involve the voters, think of it as a non-binding referendum.

Because of course, heaven forbid the people should decide anything in a democratic republic.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ah, so you support picking a president based on golf handicap, spin the bottle or some other method that doesnt involve all these pesky voters....joy.

Or how large a payoff they can give to those in charge of the EC...then again, that would be a fine libertarian way to choose a head of state so I shouldnt be supirsed .

You involve the voters, think of it as a non-binding referendum.

Because of course, heaven forbid the people should decide anything in a democratic republic.

We are not a democratic republic, we are a constitutional republic. Get it right. Mob rule is probably the most dangerous thing in human history.

[MKSheppard]

Secondly, do we really want this 1 man one vote proportional representation?

Look how well that's worked in Italy, which has gone through 50 governments in 40 years.

Or Israel, where any serious attempt at peace keeps getting sidelined
by the hardline religious fundies who have a vote because of their
fucked up parlimentary system that gives them power.