Post by Rudy Canoza Post by NoBody Post by Rudy Canoza Post by NoBody
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:12:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty Post by NoBody Post by Rudy Canoza Post by Don Kresch Post by Gronk Post by Mike Colangelo Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
The highest populated State would win the elections,
Bullshit. In a popular vote system, the states don't vote.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a popular vote system, and in
fact it is the best and fairest - that's why every state uses it to
elect its governor and other statewide offices.
The only real historical reason for the electoral college is slavery.
All the other bullshit excuses are smokescreen.
As a fellow libertarian, I'd be very wary of a strict majoritarian
electoral system. Have you never heard the phrase "tyranny of the
majority?" Adams used it, Tocqueville popularized it.
The US is a federal, not a unitary state, which is one reason for
having 50 elections instead of 1 for President. The British have
650 separate elections for the House of Commons, with the resulting
MPs voting for the PM. Prime ministers have received the majority
of votes from MPs who, cumulatively, have not received a majority
of popular votes on an all-UK basis. The only difference between that
kind of election for executive and what the US does is the lack of
(approximately) uniform constituencies for electors, and the weighting
of the EC votes towards less populous states.
Plurality voting works to the advantage of the larger parties,
and in most circumstances the winning party in particular, which
is usually over-represented at the expense of third parties, and
often at the expense of its major challenger as well. Nonetheless,
under first-past-the-post a major party may win more seats than
its main competitor despite receiving fewer votes than the latter,
as was the case of the British elections of 1929 and February 1974
(when Labour won more seats but fewer votes than the Conservatives)
as well as 1951 (when the Conservatives won an overall majority
despite having received fewer votes than Labour). However, the
system usually amplifies the majority attained by the winning party:
in all but one general election since the end of World War II (February
1974), a single party emerged with a clear legislative majority, and
was able to subsequently form a government.
The US is not unique in having distortions caused by close races.
I'd prefer some sort of proportional representation* in our House
seats, since I'm a third-party guy. If we were going to have a
Presidential election by popular vote, a runoff, either in a two-stage
election, a la France, or one of the alternate voting systems such
as Instant Runoff or Approval Voting would be a good idea. I wouldn't
want a President elected with a small plurality of the popular vote, with
a large field splitting the rest of the vote.
6% of us voted neither for the Haircut nor The Pantsuit. HRC
only topped Trump by 2% out of 100%. Yes, that's nearly 2.9 million
votes, but given that over 8 million couldn't stand either of these
wretches, that's not such a big number.
Of course, pure majoritarianism would allow 50% + 1 to repeal the
Bill of Rights and run roughshod over any minority position. I'll
pass on that.