Aquarius wrote:
I thought the electoral college had grown up to 538 now, since 270 would give anyone the win, and 269 would have made the candidates even ?
We'd have to add a few seats to congress. This will happen if Puerto Rico becomes a state. They'd add 2 senate seats for sure, then maybe add some house seats. More than likely they'd add 2 senate seats then just reapportion the House, although that just happened, doing it again before the next census would be a bit of a mess.
@Levi: Where did you get, "The side that got fewer votes won." Michigan is part of a bigger picture. You take the popular vote from Michigan and split the 16 points (from Michigan) accordingly and thus do it for every state. The side that gets the most votes gets the most points from the states. But not all off them, giving all of them way isn't fair at all.
@Crommy: Well if that's the case then we would be living in a mostly Muslim community. Therefore we would have to accept it. They would had to have taken over both my the EC and popular vote to achieve in my scenario however.
Use that example against the popular vote... everyone in major cities were Muslim. They over take all the Christians that are in suburbs. Sound fair to you?
Or against the electoral college: Muslims invade the west and take all the votes to beat out the Christians on the east. Is that fair?
Mresuperstar wrote:
@Levi: Where did you get, "The side that got fewer votes won." Michigan is part of a bigger picture. You take the popular vote from Michigan and split the 16 points (from Michigan) accordingly and thus do it for every state. The side that gets the most votes gets the most points from the states. But not all off them, giving all of them way isn't fair at all.
@Crommy: Well if that's the case then we would be living in a mostly Muslim community. Therefore we would have to accept it. They would had to have taken over both my the EC and popular vote to achieve in my scenario however.
Use that example against the popular vote... everyone in major cities were Muslim. They over take all the Christians that are in suburbs. Sound fair to you? [1]
Or against the electoral college: Muslims invade the west and take all the votes to beat out the Christians on the east. Is that fair? [2]
[1] Yes. The majority vote has chosen the President, and you still have your local representatives in Congress who are more likely aligned with your viewpoint
[2] I don't understand the situation, could you explain further.
But you're missing the entire point. Electing somebody who represents the whole country (in addition to, and this is important, your more local representatives (and that's not even getting into state officials)) can only be fair if everyone's vote is the same, regardless of where they live, their religion, their name, their gender etc.
Levi4life wrote:
The budget deficit that is so antithetical to Republicans is largely driven by Bush era policies. You can't ignore this fact. Of the 5.5 or so trillion dollars in debt accumulated during Obama's first term, the vast majority (about 4.5 trillion) was the result of the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stimulus spending was less than a trillion.
I don't buy republican fiscal policy. Republicans have had about 30 years to make it happen, with a slight blip in the 90's under Clinton. The most prosperous time period in the past 30 years for America? Under Clinton. The only balanced budgets? Under Clinton. Relatively high tax rate? Under Clinton.
It seems that if you really care about debt, deficits and the economy you should be voting for Democrats. There's a reason Clinton is the most popular man in American politics.
I wanted to react on that, since more or less the same schemes can be observed here, and probably in many countries as well. A lot of the deficits or public debts are linked to economical growth on a global scale.
In recent history it went well from the early 90's until 2002 or something. Then it started again and crashed in 2008 (subprime crisis, etc.). It's only starting again now, with employment figures improving, and the euro-crisis possibly getting solved.
In the USA Bill Clinton benefited from that favourable context, whereas things started getting worst under Bush Jr, remained bad for most of Obama's first mandate and only start looking better again.
Of course various policies can have an influence on growth, taxes, debts, etc. but global economics have a much bigger influence on that than any policy be it from a left or a right wing party (given they're not extremists).
Saying Obama has been a disaster for economy and that he should have gotten fired for that is unfair, IMO, just like praising Clinton for how well economy went on when he was President is excessive.
By the look of things economy should improve under Obama's second mandate, but had Romney been elected it'd most likely improve too.
Mresuperstar wrote:
@Levi: Where did you get, "The side that got fewer votes won." Michigan is part of a bigger picture. You take the popular vote from Michigan and split the 16 points (from Michigan) accordingly and thus do it for every state. The side that gets the most votes gets the most points from the states. But not all off them, giving all of them way isn't fair at all.
I'm working within the parameters of the metaphor. Your concern is that a majority of people who live in your state voted in a way that does not reflect your own views. You are saying it's unfair that your vote "doesn't count" because the urban population overruled your vote. Rural/suburban people are "James." You feel persecuted because people from Detroit determine policy. Yet this is a democracy. There are more people in Detroit than in Jamesville.
And it is fair in the big picture. If your vote is overruled in Michigan, then Texas Democrats are overruled in Texas.
@Crommy: Well if that's the case then we would be living in a mostly Muslim community. Therefore we would have to accept it. They would had to have taken over both my the EC and popular vote to achieve in my scenario however.
Use that example against the popular vote... everyone in major cities were Muslim. They over take all the Christians that are in suburbs. Sound fair to you?
Levi4life wrote:
Another result, one which has gone a bit under the radar, is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood. It has to be approved by Congress first though.
Chances of that happening?
0% We would have to add another star to the flag and 50 is such a nice number.
You're saying that only because you've never tasted this :
Levi4life wrote:
The budget deficit that is so antithetical to Republicans is largely driven by Bush era policies. You can't ignore this fact. Of the 5.5 or so trillion dollars in debt accumulated during Obama's first term, the vast majority (about 4.5 trillion) was the result of the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stimulus spending was less than a trillion.
I don't buy republican fiscal policy. Republicans have had about 30 years to make it happen, with a slight blip in the 90's under Clinton. The most prosperous time period in the past 30 years for America? Under Clinton. The only balanced budgets? Under Clinton. Relatively high tax rate? Under Clinton.
It seems that if you really care about debt, deficits and the economy you should be voting for Democrats. There's a reason Clinton is the most popular man in American politics.
I wanted to react on that, since more or less the same schemes can be observed here, and probably in many countries as well. A lot of the deficits or public debts are linked to economical growth on a global scale.
In recent history it went well from the early 90's until 2002 or something. Then it started again and crashed in 2008 (subprime crisis, etc.). It's only starting again now, with employment figures improving, and the euro-crisis possibly getting solved.
In the USA Bill Clinton benefited from that favourable context, whereas things started getting worst under Bush Jr, remained bad for most of Obama's first mandate and only start looking better again.
Of course various policies can have an influence on growth, taxes, debts, etc. but global economics have a much bigger influence on that than any policy be it from a left or a right wing party (given they're not extremists).
Saying Obama has been a disaster for economy and that he should have gotten fired for that is unfair, IMO, just like praising Clinton for how well economy went on when he was President is excessive.
By the look of things economy should improve under Obama's second mandate, but had Romney been elected it'd most likely improve too.
This.
And increased globalisation means this grows ever more true
@Crommy & Levi: This will be my last post, After this I think I have argued my point long enough to which you understand it. If you agree with it or not is your decision. Most likely you'll disagree like you have been the whole time.
I believe that both the popular vote and EC are flawed. But both have positive aspects.
So by combining them you get this better system. Popular vote allows the majority to be heard... every vote counts. And EC limits the power cities have over the rest of the country.
But by doing so the EC removes every vote from being heard.
You tend to keep lending towards popular vote so just look up "why popular vote is bad" and you will get Google in all up into a frenzy.
A new system is needed either way... I would gladly hear what you would propose instead? But I fear you would say popular vote which I don't have to argue because millions of other people have already shot it down...
I still don't get why you would split the electoral vote points in lieu of scrapping the system.
Take Michigan for example. 16 electoral votes. 54% to Obama, 45% to Romney. Obama would get 8.64 electoral votes. Romney would get most of the remainder. Might as well just go with the popular vote, because in this system the electoral college would exactly reflect the the popular vote.
And if your system limits favors cities over the countryside then it's not fair to the cities. You might feel shafted because you live in the country side, but that's tough shit. That's not democracy. You shouldn't favor a minority at the majorities expense.
As I noted before, the system in the senate already favors rural areas more than it should. Just look at the subsidies farmers get. They're something like 3% of the population but they run our trade policy.
Levi4life wrote:
The budget deficit that is so antithetical to Republicans is largely driven by Bush era policies. You can't ignore this fact. Of the 5.5 or so trillion dollars in debt accumulated during Obama's first term, the vast majority (about 4.5 trillion) was the result of the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stimulus spending was less than a trillion.
I don't buy republican fiscal policy. Republicans have had about 30 years to make it happen, with a slight blip in the 90's under Clinton. The most prosperous time period in the past 30 years for America? Under Clinton. The only balanced budgets? Under Clinton. Relatively high tax rate? Under Clinton.
It seems that if you really care about debt, deficits and the economy you should be voting for Democrats. There's a reason Clinton is the most popular man in American politics.
I wanted to react on that, since more or less the same schemes can be observed here, and probably in many countries as well. A lot of the deficits or public debts are linked to economical growth on a global scale.
In recent history it went well from the early 90's until 2002 or something. Then it started again and crashed in 2008 (subprime crisis, etc.). It's only starting again now, with employment figures improving, and the euro-crisis possibly getting solved.
In the USA Bill Clinton benefited from that favourable context, whereas things started getting worst under Bush Jr, remained bad for most of Obama's first mandate and only start looking better again.
Of course various policies can have an influence on growth, taxes, debts, etc. but global economics have a much bigger influence on that than any policy be it from a left or a right wing party (given they're not extremists).
Saying Obama has been a disaster for economy and that he should have gotten fired for that is unfair, IMO, just like praising Clinton for how well economy went on when he was President is excessive.
By the look of things economy should improve under Obama's second mandate, but had Romney been elected it'd most likely improve too.
I agree on every point. The cyclical nature of the global economy has far more to do with the health of the economy than a president. I would just stress that public policy has an important role in defining the parameters in which the economy functions. One could argue that the Bush Tax cuts, combined with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added substantially to the debt, and at the expense of domestic programs, like infrastructure, which might have actually improved economic performance. AND this potent combination has hindered the ability of Obama's administration to respond to the financial crisis. There was a stimulus bill, which went a long way to stopping the bleeding. However deadlock in DC has prevented further spending. The stimulus helped stop the free fall, and there's been nothing to goose the recovery.
Just to illustrate how it could work, let's (try to) explain our regional elections system.
First there are 22 regions here, and 65 or 67 millions of people, making it an average of 3 millions per region, so the same system could (potentially) be applied for your E.C. And I'm quite certain that the number of region representatives is proportional to the population.
It's a 2 rounds election, per list. Each party has its list, so, sometimes, there's more than a dozen of them to pick among. When they're clever enough, they merge their potential lists before the first round though.
The list that comes first at the first round gets 25 % of seats. Only lists above 12 % (or 20 % of potential voters - it's not mandatory to vote - and the rule regularly changes) can maintain for the second round.
Lists can still merge between the first and the second round.
After the second round, the remaining seats are shared proportionally.
That's one model that could combine both systems, as suggested above.
Our regional representatives don't elect anyone though, they only manage regional business.
Mresuperstar wrote:
@Crommy & Levi: This will be my last post [1], After this I think I have argued my point long enough to which you understand it. If you agree with it or not is your decision. Most likely you'll disagree like you have been the whole time.
I believe that both the popular vote and EC are flawed. But both have positive aspects.
So by combining them you get this better system. Popular vote allows the majority to be heard... every vote counts. And EC limits the power cities have over the rest of the country.
But by doing so the EC removes every vote from being heard.
You tend to keep lending towards popular vote so just look up "why popular vote is bad" and you will get Google in all up into a frenzy.
A new system is needed either way... I would gladly hear what you would propose instead? [2] But I fear you would say popular vote which I don't have to argue because millions of other people have already shot it down...
[1] That's fair enough. I've enjoyed the discussion, and am glad it's been civil (it's hard for me to get across the internet the difference between passionate debate and just plain attack).
[2] I think your worry is a majority imposing their will upon the minority? This is where I believe America is a truly beautiful country, through the system of checks and balances in terms of lawmaking. The US Constitution is almost the most beautiful piece of legislature in the world. After the US managed to get the idea it should apply to everyone regardless of race or gender, it (and the Supreme Court) should provide the ultimate check against any part of US government (although let's not get into the failings when we translate this idea into the real world )
You also say you're worried about your vote not counting, your voice not being heard. Well, the fact that so much of US law is dictated by states is the first argument to that. But on a federal level, I think you're neglecting the role Congress has, and the manner by which it is elected. They are far more important, because instead of turning 100 million+ votes into just one, you get those 100 million+ votes into 535 (still not a great ratio, I know). Most importantly (and I might be wrong about this (and if I am, then this isn't as good a system as I thought it was)), Congress must approve all legislature.
Now if the party you didn't vote for controls both Congress and the Presidential Office, then you have to accept that your views on a national level maybe aren't shared by enough people.
So I'm for the popular vote for President. But only because Congress (and how it is elected), the Constitution and the Supreme Court exist.
Fair enough. Luck for me Republicans still hold the House of Representative slowing down Obama's policies. And I agree the Constitution is a great piece of work. Our overall system isn't flawed but I think how we select the president is.
Thanks again for the "lovely" debate. Glad I could kinda hold my own considering I'm only 18 and still have a lot to learn.
Hope to seeya around the site... considering I probably won't be making a return to this thread (unless I'm up for another round of politics) Which will probably be in another 4 years
Aquarius wrote:
Just to illustrate how it could work, let's (try to) explain our regional elections system.
First there are 22 regions here, and 65 or 67 millions of people, making it an average of 3 millions per region, so the same system could (potentially) be applied for your E.C. And I'm quite certain that the number of region representatives is proportional to the population.
It's a 2 rounds election, per list. Each party has its list, so, sometimes, there's more than a dozen of them to pick among. When they're clever enough, they merge their potential lists before the first round though.
The list that comes first at the first round gets 25 % of seats. Only lists above 12 % (or 20 % of potential voters - it's not mandatory to vote - and the rule regularly changes) can maintain for the second round.
Lists can still merge between the first and the second round.
After the second round, the remaining seats are shared proportionally.
That's one model that could combine both systems, as suggested above.
Our regional representatives don't elect anyone though, they only manage regional business.
The electoral college isn't really an elected body though. Elected officials can't be electors in the college. They are chosen by state legislators, then when the election rolls around they are supposed to vote the way the state went. They don't have to vote one way or the other though. For example, in Michigan an elector chooses to vote for Romney instead of Obama. It's possible, it's not illegal, but it rarely happens.
Levi4life wrote:
The electoral college isn't really an elected body though. Elected officials can't be electors in the college. They are chosen by state legislators, then when the election rolls around they are supposed to vote the way the state went. They don't have to vote one way or the other though. For example, in Michigan an elector chooses to vote for Romney instead of Obama. It's possible, it's not illegal, but it rarely happens.
I've always wondered about that. Is there reasoning for this being the way it is? And are there any ramifications for going against the vote?
Mresuperstar wrote:
Fair enough. Luck for me Republicans still hold the House of Representative slowing down Obama's policies. And I agree the Constitution is a great piece of work. Our overall system isn't flawed but I think how we select the president is.
Thanks again for the "lovely" debate. Glad I could kinda hold my own considering I'm only 18 and still have a lot to learn.
Hope to seeya around the site... considering I probably won't be making a return to this thread (unless I'm up for another round of politics) Which will probably be in another 4 years
Cheers
It's cool to agree with someone on the site as I'm usually taken down in packs.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Levi4life wrote:
The electoral college isn't really an elected body though. Elected officials can't be electors in the college. They are chosen by state legislators, then when the election rolls around they are supposed to vote the way the state went. They don't have to vote one way or the other though. For example, in Michigan an elector chooses to vote for Romney instead of Obama. It's possible, it's not illegal, but it rarely happens.
I've always wondered about that. Is there reasoning for this being the way it is? And are there any ramifications for going against the vote?
The electoral college is supposed to protect the rights of small states, ironically given the conversation.
In some states there are ramifications. Votes can be voided, but in many states the elector must first pledge to vote with the state, before becoming an elector. It's never changed an election though.
kumazan wrote:
It also helps that no one in the Democratic Part has said that women getting pregnant after being raped is God's will, and that kind of retarded things. But hey, Europeans must be atheist nutjobs.
This, plus Obama at least know where Europe is, not like Romney who thinks world ends with Pacific and Atlantic.
cactus-jack wrote:
I myself is quiet pleased with Obama winning the election, part because I agree with his policies (I'm a bit of a leftie) and part because the media is very Obama-friendly here. I guess it is in most of Europe aswell.
There are a few things that continues to surprise me about the US. For a nation that is seen as the "perfect democracy" and "land of the free" (que bald eagle) religion seems to play a certain part in the elections(Santorum, Mitt the Mor(m)on, etc.)" and there's also the fact that it's a two-party system.
I believe there should be a greater flora of parties in all countries, it would give people an actual choise.
Democracy in America? Hahaaaahhhaaaaaaa. Wait democracy?Haaaahaaaa.
There is not a dictartorship of a man, but a dictatorship of media, fast-foods and religion blindness
Most likely you'll disagree like you have been the whole time.
Which will probably be in another 4 years 
