That Putin is one Funny Guy

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gunslinger


Without the electoral college I could campaign in NY and CA and promise those two states all the bennies in the world on a silver platter.  I could get elected on those two states votes alone and not have to worry about any other state in the union.  With the electoral votes other states have a "weighted value" so to speak, based on population.

Alaska has very few possible votes but they still count because of their electoral votes.

No, the way its set up now Cali and NY are more important then Alaska because of the electoral votes. those are the states that they do promise the world to.

California is worth 55 votes and NY is worth 31 while Alaska is worth a whopping 3 votes.

How does that rate ALaska equally as important as NY or Cali?
Where would you campaign and make your promises to if you were running?


My way each state would be equally important. 1 state gets 1 vote. With DC or Peurto Rico acting as the tiebreaker.

The way it is now. No way can it be said Alaska is viewed to be as important as California.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No, the way its set up now Cali and NY are more important then Alaska because of the electoral votes. those are the states that they do promise the world to.

California is worth 55 votes and NY is worth 31 while Alaska is worth a whopping 3 votes.

How does that rate ALaska equally as important as NY or Cali?
Where would you campaign and make your promises to if you were running?


My way each state would be equally important. 1 state gets 1 vote. With DC or Peurto Rico acting as the tiebreaker.

The way it is now. No way can it be said Alaska is viewed to be as important as California.

first off I was refferring to an election W/O the EC.  In that instance the Population alone in both of those states is enough to win a national election.

Second California and NY are more heavily weighted because of their population.  That only seems fair to me that the will of 20 million citizens should have more weight than the will of 800,000

If Alaska had the population that cali did it would be equally important.  To me the current system is rather fair as compared to one state one vote.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
first off I was refferring to an election W/O the EC.  In that instance the Population alone in both of those states is enough to win a national election.

Second California and NY are more heavily weighted because of their population.  That only seems fair to me that the will of 20 million citizens should have more weight than the will of 800,000

If Alaska had the population that cali did it would be equally important.  To me the current system is rather fair as compared to one state one vote.

Musta misread your post

But then you wouldnt have in Hamiltons words
" to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."

The less populated states become a minority of sorts and thus less equal leaving them open to exactly that. "The injustices of the other part"

[DREDIOCK]

In the last election if done my way Bush still would have won with 27 states.

Interestingly enough. You dont have to win even half the 50 states to win the presidency.
All it takes is 11 under the current system.

So theoretically 11 states can decide who is president reguardless of what the other 39 want

and that seems fair?

[Toad]

Finally, as the election of 1888 demonstrates, the Electoral College system imposes two requirements on candidates for the presidency:

� that the victor obtain a sufficient popular vote to enable him to govern (although this may not be the absolute majority), and

� that such a popular vote be sufficiently distributed across the country to enable him to govern.

Such an arrangement ensures a regional balance of support which is a vital consideration in governing a large and diverse nation (even though in close elections, as in 1888, distribution of support may take precedence over majority of support).

Also, there have been 8 cases of fathless electors in our history. NONE of those electors affected the outcome of the race.

It works. It's a good thing.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Musta misread your post

But then you wouldnt have in Hamiltons words
" to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."

The less populated states become a minority of sorts and thus less equal leaving them open to exactly that. "The injustices of the other part"

I guess we can agree to disagree.  I think the EC gives "fair weight" to all CITIZNES of the states.  Alaska has their votes because of the population....California has theirs likewise.

I mainly disagree with your point because your way is empowering lesser populated states unfairly.  It would put the will of a few hundred thousand against the will of millions.  To me there's just too much inequity in that.  

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Suave
That's like saying, "Bush didn't get rid of presidential election debates, he just refused to participate in them."

Is it wrong? He had let other clowns perform the "debates" without him, but still won getting over 70% of votes. Could Bush afford it?

I didn't vote at the last presidental elections. I don't like Putin and I didn't want to vote for other clowns. On the next elections I'll vote for communists, not because I support them (they are the same bloody thiefs as any other *******s in Russian politics), but because they are the only organised opposition to the regime.

Anyway - it's only games.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Were they really?
Or did the Media (now again controled by your government I beleive, but correct me if Im wrong)
Simply spin them that way?

Sure. Like Caligula's horse. Sorry, horse had more intelligence. Example: Liberal-democratic party candidate was not  the chairman but his security chief...

Putin is irrationally popular here.

Media is not controlled by the government. We have all the range of opinions on TV (even more in newspapers), from government-approved Western propaganda to "patriotic" and Orthodox church hallucinations.

[genozaur]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK what we need to do is get rid of thise whole electoral votes system and just go by states. Forget this nonsence of Fla being worth 27 votes ad North Dakota being worth 3 Just go by states then each state becomes equally important. And not just the most populated states Just so we dont have a tie we can treat Washington DC as a state or make Puerto Rico a state,( which is long overdue).

Each state = one vote. That's a very solid federalist approach. This can work.

[genozaur]

Originally posted by Boroda "Democratic Republic" sounds like "antropophagic cannibal". Two words meaning the same thing in different languages.

Perfect comparison. And I am not talking about "Cannibal Republic". Toad is explaining it too well.

[genozaur]

Originally posted by Suave That's like saying, "Bush didn't get rid of presidential election debates, he just refused to participate in them."

And there is a big difference beetween "not participating" and "getting read of". I wonder what really american AGITPROP reported about about Putin and Russian presidential candidates' debates.  

[bozon]

rule of the majority...
Most of the people I meet are complete morons. What does that say about the rule of the majority?

A vote is a way for a group of people to decide on a specific issue they debated and know all there is to know about. In modern mass democracy you vote for someone who will do the studying and thinking in your place.

Even the idea of voting for someone who will represent your idiology is mute since:

1. if you have only 2-4 serious parties you will find it hard to find one that really represent YOUR idiology. Definitly 1 person president won't.

2. Major parties don't really have idiology anymore, only different sponsers.

3. (most) People don't have idiologies anymore, only interests.

4. People are cluless. They don't know or don't want to know all the details. If they do, the media makes a great effort in feeding them biased or irrelevant or wrong or none information.

To sum this up, democracy can only really be applied to small comunities where people are strongly involved in what's going on. I'm afraid that western democracy is on the decline. Democracy without real idiology is just a jungle.

Bozon

[Glasses]

what we need to do is get rid of thise whole electoral votes system and just go by states.
Forget this nonsence of Fla being worth 27 votes ad North Dakota being worth 3
Just go by states then each state becomes equally important. And not just the most populated states

Just so we dont have a tie we can treat Washington DC as a state or make Puerto Rico a state,( which is long overdue).

Well I live in this god forsaken island I guess the  most important obstacle you have for the island to become a state is both  the politicians and the unwillingness of congress to have  the 100 by 25 equivelant of the Bronx and the just plain ignorance of people.


Believe you me  half the island doesn't want to become  a state and most  of congress don't want this friggin' island, PR will be a colony until it's handed out to another power or the inevitable independence which will make the island descend into civil war

A real life zoo just like Haiti or any other god forsaken caribbean island

[Gixer]

I think Putin has a point or two. American democracy seems a far cry from how the Greeks originally invisaged it.


...-Gixer