Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on April 02, 2008, 02:19:50 PM
-
For Federal elections.. I think a way to assign electorial votes by state would be to do it by area. Leave population out of it.
For instance.. If your state had 200,000 square miles.. it would get say 20 electorial votes for pres... if it had an area of 600,000.. it would get three times as many or 60 votes.
I would also like to see kalifornia divided into northern and southern kalifornia.
Having large population centers with people jammed into crap hole cities like so many stressed out rats.. determine how the rest of the country lives is just insane.. that is the real rift between "blue" and "red" America.
If not that.. what?
lazs
-
The Electorial College is way out dated, and IMO does not refelect the Peoples Choice, Why should a select few deal out any states Electorial Votes
-
How about if we compromise and give some votes to each state regardless of their population, like two maybe, and then some others based on thier population?
So Wyoming would get two for being a state, and another for being a state with a small population.
Then say New Jersey would get two for being a state, and then maybe 13 for having a moderately large population?
-
I agree but.. it is the same thing.. why should a few tiny little population centers that have nothing to do with the lives of the rest of the country dictate who represents the country?
lazs
-
So you think my idea has at least a little merit?
-
the only people that are against the Electoral College are those that lose the election.
-
So lazs, you are against the people deciding what the people want? You want the acreage to decide? LOL.
-
holden.. I agree that any idea the evened out the problem of two Americas.. Two complete opposites.. trying to dictate to each other has merit.
I think any idea that gave rural America more representation has merit. There really is no similarity in the lifestyles of the two Americas.
The alternative is.. well.. what we have now and getting worse. I am not the one who came up with "red" and "blue" America.. it is very real and very problematic.
lazs
-
Lazs;
You do realize that my idea was an accurate description of the present electoral college system... don't you?
-
Seems like a pretty slick way to negate the "urban" vote. :aok
-
Seems like a pretty slick way to negate the "urban" vote. :aok
James Madison thought so.
-
James Madison thought so.
Actually I was talking about lazs' original idea. Yours was pretty funny, I wonder who caught it.
-
The problem with Lazs original is that all you would have to do is win AK, MT, and WY.
It would lessen the required funding for the pres run tho.
-
So lazs, you are against the people deciding what the people want? You want the acreage to decide? LOL.
We are against the cemetaries of Chicago and Philadelphia voting for the democrats. We wouldn't really mind if suddenly the dead people started voting republican, but then the libs would probably start to get pissed.
Seeing as how they have never voted for the republicans, I'm going to say no to a general popular election. I'd hate to see old great grandfather joe be the deciding factor for another 4 years of bellybutton raping from the socialists.
-
Huge population centers dictating the rules to the sparsely populated area will eventually lead to either the 2nd American Revolution or the 2nd Civil War. The name you choose for it will likely depend on which side you are on.
Is it coincidence that the red is the color given to states now tend to favor state's rights (think red Confederate battle flag) and blue is the color given to states that tend to favor Federal omnipotence (think Yankee blue)? :)
Was the secession issue ever settled in the Supreme Court or was it only settled by force of arms? Wonder if some state could secede and get it on the SC docket. :)
-
Huge population centers dictating the rules to the sparsely populated area will eventually lead to either the 2nd American Revolution or the 2nd Civil War. The name you choose for it will likely depend on which side you are on.
Is it coincidence that the red is the color given to states now tend to favor state's rights (think red Confederate battle flag) and blue is the color given to states that tend to favor Federal omnipotence (think Yankee blue)? :)
Was the secession issue ever settled in the Supreme Court or was it only settled by force of arms? Wonder if some state could secede and get it on the SC docket. :)
Unfortunately, nearly all states are too politically diverse for a peaceful secession. The only solution is Revolution. The real question is, When?
-
I wonder who caught it.
Probably everyone one that started their education before 1965 or so. After that it was probably not taught.
BTW, not only the electoral college but the Congress as well. Senate/House representation ya know.
-
My problem isn't so much with the electoral college but as the winner take all nature of it on a per state basis and the fact that winning just 4 states out of 50 can get you the one fourth of the electoral votes needed. Even if each of those 4 states the candidate wins by only 100 votes.
Why can't the electoral college be awarded by house / senate seat that they represent? So if my house of rep area in MN votes 85% republican why can't the electoral college vote from my area be republican? The two state wide seats (senate) could go to the majority.
-
Some places they are. But the states are split as to whether or not it's an all or proportion award.
-
I thought only Oklahoma or Nebraska was that way today and all the others were winner take all. Off to due some googling.
edit -- looks like Nebraska and Maine do the per seat/rep method and all the others do the simple majority.
-
Sounds like a reasonable idea... now we also need to apportion the income tax the same way, so many dollars per acre divided by the population, I like it.
shamus
-
Sounds like a reasonable idea... now we also need to apportion the income tax the same way, so many dollars per acre divided by the population, I like it.
shamus
You speak of repealing the 16th amendment.
-
You speak of repealing the 16th amendment.
Well I guess you would have to do that, but I am not talking about taxing the income from property, I am saying that if the weight of elections is based on acreage than the revenue should be as well.
shamus
-
The Electorial College is way out dated, and IMO does not refelect the Peoples Choice, Why should a select few deal out any states Electorial Votes
What's this Electorial College you speak of? You must be a "Rocky"...errr... I mean Hillary supporter. Replace the "Electoral College" with something that sounds almost like it but is somehow more in your favor.
Either that, or you flunked American Government class in college.
-
Lazs;
You do realize that my idea was an accurate description of the present electoral college system... don't you?
No, actually, he did not. Surprised as you may be.
-
The Electorial College is way out dated, and IMO does not refelect the Peoples Choice, Why should a select few deal out any states Electorial Votes
The major function of the electoral college is to prevent 3 way log jams. If you notice, systems that give direct representation end up with multiple viable parties that fragment the electorate. The effect then is to force major parties to cut deals with other groups in order to achieve a governing majority.
By using "winner take all" system on a state by state basis, minor parties have a hard time getting started. Those that have a good idea that attracts attention end up finding their programs co-opted by one of the big two, who then end up reflecting the will of the people.
Before slamming the electoral college, realize that it almost always reflects the popular vote totals, and the times it doesn't it offers regional weighting that isnt all bad. And, after all, one of the Presidents we've elected with Electoral College majorities and popular vote pluralities (ie leading but not enough votes to win the election) was Abraham Lincoln, who most historians consider either the best or second best president we've had. (That's not talking about his politics or his popularity, but the way he managed high stakes crisis after crisis in government, popular opinion, domestic political infighting, and international politics.)
-
For Federal elections.. I think a way to assign electorial votes by state would be to do it by area. Leave population out of it.
For instance.. If your state had 200,000 square miles.. it would get say 20 electorial votes for pres... if it had an area of 600,000.. it would get three times as many or 60 votes.
I would also like to see kalifornia divided into northern and southern kalifornia.
Having large population centers with people jammed into crap hole cities like so many stressed out rats.. determine how the rest of the country lives is just insane.. that is the real rift between "blue" and "red" America.
If not that.. what?
lazs
So you're proposing that the votes of rural people should be worth substantially more than those of urban and suburban ones?
Why not just appoint a reactionary dictator and be done with it!
-
Before slamming the electoral college, realize that it almost always reflects the popular vote totals, and the times it doesn't it offers regional weighting that isnt all bad. And, after all, one of the Presidents we've elected with Electoral College majorities and popular vote pluralities (ie leading but not enough votes to win the election) was Abraham Lincoln, who most historians consider either the best or second best president we've had. (That's not talking about his politics or his popularity, but the way he managed high stakes crisis after crisis in government, popular opinion, domestic political infighting, and international politics.)
Not to interrupt you, you were on a role. But Lincoln wasn't one of the best presidents. Not even close.
-
Nice troll. But repeated polls of professional historians (not amateur keyboard smashers) would disagree with you.
So you're not even close.
-
Yeah, what was I thinking? Impinged freedoms, committed unconstitutional acts, killed 600,000 americans...
-
There's no need to disenfranchise the urban vote with even more complicated rules that most americans don't understand.
There is a new trend by the way... there are more people moving out of blue city/states and settle to sunbelt states (excluding the PDRK). This means the number of electoral votes will shift to red states' favor.
-
Polls of professional historians, ranking US presidents:
C-SPAN poll of academic historians in 1999 found Lincoln ranked as best president of all time.
Harvard (research by Schlesinger, a liberal) in 1948, 1962 -- Lincoln #1 both times
Also ranking Lincoln #1 were surveys by Chicago Tribune (1982), and the Murray-Blessing survey of 842 historians.
Siena Research Institute found Lincoln ranked #2 in surveys performed in 1990, 1994, 2000, and 2002
As I said, those who spend their lives understanding politics and history think he was among the best of all time. Sailor, I appreciate that you're trying to enjoy the BBS by trolling your way to another purse fight, but you're backing a losing position...and the subject of the thread is the electoral college, not presidential rankings. So I'll decline to become further involved in a "battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
-
While I might think highly of their research, by placing FDR anywhere but the bottom 5 they lose all credibility.
Lincoln was still one of the worst presidents.
-
While I might think highly of their research, by placing FDR anywhere but the bottom 5 they lose all credibility.
Lincoln was still one of the worst presidents.
Not sure what you're looking at, but all those polls put FDR in the top 3.
BTW, I think you ought to write to all those professionals and tell them how wrong they are about Lincoln. I'm sure they'd appreciate your insight.
-
I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.
-
There is a new trend by the way... there are more people moving out of blue city/states and settle to sunbelt states (excluding the PDRK). This means the number of electoral votes will shift to red states' favor.
That might be true, haven't checked. The problem with the ones moving out is that they bring their blue baggage with them. They move to rural areas and expect to pass all their old city laws on their neighbors. Just because they move doesn't mean they change their screwed up we need a nanny attitude.
-
I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.
thats a good idea, but the govt never gives up power it only wants and takes more.
-
holden.. in the first page of this thread.. you will notice that when I said "I agree but" it was not in response to your post but the one above it. I did not see yours in time.. it was to zooms.
I responded to you later.. with "holden any"
I do agree with the founders and the intent of the original idea of the electorial.. I responded to you as such. I do agree that the founders recognized that the states needed some power no matter how small in population.
I believe that the spirit of this is as I have said.. they did not want large population centers who produced no food to run the country in a lopsided way.. I believe that a cursory glance at a federal "blue/red" map will show that further adjustments are needed.
lazs
-
ok.. shamus... you propose that income tax be based on property? It already is. so far as the two meet that is. any income you make off of the property is taxed. Are you asking for a tax that is not income tax?
On a state level.. They already do... property is taxed based on worth. The million dollar condo is taxed more than 100 acres of desert..this all seems very fair to me.
moray.. read my reply.. go to the first page and you will see that my first response was not to holden.. I did not see his post till after I replied.. My reply to holden was later and while I ignored his sarcasm, I did speak to the spirit of the thing.. that the founders.. and I... think that some form of keeping power soley out of the hands of the population centers needs to exist. The founders idea worked but it needs to be modified to work in the modern world.
In the founders time the constitution was more states rights.. laws were far fewer and states with small populations and different needs and desires were not hampered so much by large urban city laws.
lazs
-
The problem with Lazs original is that all you would have to do is win AK, MT, and WY.
It would lessen the required funding for the pres run tho.
don't forget Texas...
-
I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.
I'll second that. Strong defense....build roads and bridges.....leave us alone.
-
well.. states should be the most important thing represented in a presidential election not pure population.
the original idea.. after some modifications.. never really anticipated that one state would have almost TWENTY TIMES more of a say than others. There was a minimum for a reason. the minimum was two.. or two plus one more likely. A minimum should have a maximum.. I would be happy with the current idea or.. as holden so sarcaticaly put it... 2 plus an adjustment for more population if....
If there were a maximum.. say 3 minimum but no more than a dozen max.. that would still mean that some states would have FOUR TIMES as much say as others.
Look at the election maps folks.. is it working now? the vast majority of the land mass and states want to not be ruled by the same laws as some rat hole metrosexual cesspool dwellers.
Neither side know much about the other and most certainly.. neither side knows what is best for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the other.
It's not working folks.. when was the last time either side got a pres to vote on that they didn't think was the lesser of two evils? least not the red side anyway.
lazs
-
I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.
Winner!
-
What's this Electorial College you speak of? You must be a "Rocky"...errr... I mean Hillary supporter. Replace the "Electoral College" with something that sounds almost like it but is somehow more in your favor.
Either that, or you flunked American Government class in college.
Please tell me where i said i like billary?? you must be a.... nevermind
-
sandy.. are you saying what I think you are saying?
That a smaller federal government with less power over the states.. to the point where the feds make very little difference... is what you want?
If so.. it may be one of the first times we have agreed.
lazs
-
Not to interrupt you, you were on a role. But Lincoln wasn't one of the best presidents. Not even close.
Five Best Presidents (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html)
1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3.George Washington
4.Theodore Roosevelt
5.Harry S. Truman
RANK NAME MEAN (http://opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html)
GREAT
1 George Washington 4.92
2 Abraham Lincoln 4.87
3 Franklin Roosevelt 4.67
NEAR GREAT
4 Thomas Jefferson 4.25
5 Theodore Roosevelt 4.22
6 Andrew Jackson 3.99
7 Harry Truman 3.95
8 Ronald Reagan 3.81
9 Dwight Eisenhower 3.71
10 James Polk 3.70
11 Woodrow Wilson 3.68
Lincoln's rankings in 12 different historical surveys.
16 Abraham Lincoln 01 01 01 01 03 02 02 01 01 02 02 02
Yup. Definately NOT one of our best. Actually, THE best. Troll away.
-
moray.. I really don't care what a group of historians consider "great".
In my opinion the three worst presidents of all time are...
FDR
LBJ
Lincoln
Lincoln only made the list because of one blunder but.. it was huge.. He did more to kill states rights than anyone.
The other two did more to expand the federal government through socialist programs than any other.
Now, if you like socialism.. then they may not be considered bad at all.. you would agree with the historians that they were "great".
They also got a lot done.. if your criteria is getting the most done.. they would be "great" My criteria is that if the things you are getting done are all evil... then the less you get done.. the better.
lazs
-
Seems like a pretty slick way to negate the "urban" vote. :aok
kinda why i think they set it up like that,
so the producers would not fall under the power of the consumers
-
The Electoral College has worked in the past, but there are those who when they lose want to claim "shenanigins" on everything and say the system is broke.
It does seem odd that a candidate can lose the vote count but win by Electoral College.
How about simply going by tally of voters votes cast? Get the majority of votes in any given state = win that state. Too simple?
ROX
-
The Electoral College has worked in the past, but there are those who when they lose want to claim "shenanigins" on everything and say the system is broke.
It does seem odd that a candidate can lose the vote count but win by Electoral College.
How about simply going by tally of voters votes cast? Get the majority of votes in any given state = win that state. Too simple?
ROX
i like it, but it would never happen, all those coastal states with the large population would whine and cry because they could never get anyone elected :aok while all the land owner states and mostly fly over country as the left like to call it, would control a vast majority of the congress as well as the white house. example of the senate would be 16 states or 32 senators from the left, 36 states or 72 senators from the right, give or take 7 states
-
While I might think highly of their research, by placing FDR anywhere but the bottom 5 they lose all credibility.
Lincoln was still one of the worst presidents.
Who would you put at #1?
-
The Electoral College has worked in the past, but there are those who when they lose want to claim "shenanigins" on everything and say the system is broke.
It does seem odd that a candidate can lose the vote count but win by Electoral College.
How about simply going by tally of voters votes cast? Get the majority of votes in any given state = win that state. Too simple?
ROX
ROX,
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. It seems to me that you're proposing exactly what happens now: whoever wins the state gets the electoral college votes from the state, and the electoral college votes are directly proportional to the state's population.
The whole idea of the electoral college was to make the selection of the president more politically reliable. What many people forget is that the founders were all "Classically Educated," with a curriculum that was heavy on ancient history, literature, and languages. For a group of guys trying to set up a democracy after centuries of autocracy, the Peloponnesian War provided a HUGE caution. In that war, Athens snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when the masses voted for an invasion of Sicily. Militarily it was insane, but the masses voted for it because they would make out like bandits from the war effort itself. (Most of the city based commoners could work as rowers in wartime, making steady income even when other work dried up.)
With this example, the founders thought it was foolish to trust uneducated commoners with the levers of power. Instead, the commoners voted for the Electors, who would get together at the club and decide who'd get to be president.
In fact there's nothing in the constitution that says electors HAVE to vote a certain way. Only tradition and party loyalty bind them to vote for a specific candidate, and in fact there has been at least one instance when Electors voted against the guy they were supposed to support.
-
Great idea Lazs; the best one you've ever had.
By the way; this person's vote would be 186 times as powerful as yours:
(http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1436/eskimo.jpg)
-
I agree but.. it is the same thing.. why should a few tiny little population centers that have nothing to do with the lives of the rest of the country dictate who represents the country?
lazs
agreed.....i've never really liked the electorial system. it seems very unfair as you've already stated. the popular vote should be the way to go......i think.....
<<S>>
-
the only people that are against the Electoral College are those that lose the election.
popular vote.
-
So lazs, you are against the people deciding what the people want? You want the acreage to decide? LOL.
ditch the electorial system and use the popular vote. maybe i'm mssing something, but i don't think so. if i am, i'd be happy to be enlightened
<<S>>
-
Great idea Lazs; the best one you've ever had.
By the way; this person's vote would be 186 times as powerful as yours:
(http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1436/eskimo.jpg)
WINNER!?!?!?! :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
what your missing is what the founders of the country could not decide about!
some wanted only land owners to vote, while others thought all the people should decide!
the reasoning behind this is simple if non land owners voted and elected people who then worked against the rights of owners it would not be long before you would have a socialist type of america so they did the unthinkable, they comprimised and created the electoral college where as the popular vote could and in most instances would win but the security of the land owners and or smaller states could still be protected in close elections!
i dont remember any time when the votes were as close as they are now and i fear that the electoral votes may soon not be able to keep pace with the growing population!
of course it is just my opinion! :aok
-
Whiskey:
The electoral votes are fixed by law at 538 nationwide. No matter how the population shifts around, the Electoral College total remains the same -- and is equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives from each state.
The college does not and did not affect the struggle between landed and landless voters. Voter eligibility is a completely different issue, and was addressed partly by states and partly by the constitution itself. (Remember the abhorrent formula that assigned 3/5 of a population tally for every male black slave?)
-
Whiskey:
The electoral votes are fixed by law at 538 nationwide. No matter how the population shifts around, the Electoral College total remains the same -- and is equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives from each state.
The college does not and did not affect the struggle between landed and landless voters. Voter eligibility is a completely different issue, and was addressed partly by states and partly by the constitution itself. (Remember the abhorrent formula that assigned 3/5 of a population tally for every male black slave?)
so will the electoral votes increase as population does or stay the same even tho the population grows and if the population grows and shifts more and more to the coastal states will there be an even bigger rift between the popular vote and the college?
just a question, i dont know as much about it as i thought, or maybe i am right :confused: there may be no way too know for sure :rofl
-
Hey Sim! :salute
No I get what your saying...
I guess (I should have been more detailed, my bad).
What I should have said was tally up the all the votes nationwide and winner takes all. Making it a state-by-state would be too close to what we already have.
Most do not understand the Electoral College--and it has worked fine in the past except in races were extremely close, but maybe a "popular" vote determine the winner may end all the controversy.
Each registered voter = one vote...your vote counts the same as anyone else's.
I'm no way an expert on the constitution, and in the end, I believe law makers or the Supreme Court would balk at any changes to the current system.
Just an idea. :salute
ROX
-
so will the electoral votes increase as population does or stay the same even tho the population grows and if the population grows and shifts more and more to the coastal states will there be an even bigger rift between the popular vote and the college?
just a question, i dont know as much about it as i thought, or maybe i am right :confused: there may be no way too know for sure :rofl
There really isn't that much of a rift between the electoral college and the popular vote, and like ROX said the college hardly ever comes out differently than the popular vote.
Whiskey, what happens after a census is this. Once the population of the US is counted, the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided equally among the states. What's supposed to happen is that each representative is representing the same number of people, no matter where they are from...so if there were 435 million people in the US, each state would get a representative for every million people it had in the state. Every state gets at least one member of the House, and every state (no matter how big or small) gets 2 US Senators.
The electoral college is apportioned based on the layout of the members of the house, plus the 2 members of the senate. So, the Electoral College is very much based on population distribution, and the system has adapted to growth quite nicely. The only thing about it that distorts the popular vote is the winner-take-all awarding of delegates on a state by state basis.
-
eskimo.. I did say that there would be a maximum.
Even so.. there are a few studies out on the current situation and they range from the college giving rural people a slight edge to kalifornia voters having about 3.3 times the impact of people in Wyoming.
your example is pretty good tho.. what does someone in the ghetto of new york city know about being an eskimo? about the stuff that is under the cement in the three blocks that is his world for that matter?
lazs
-
I'm wondering if you're barking up the wrong tree here, Laz.
Is the trouble really that the voting system gives disproportionate power to urban areas, or is it that our culture has simply once again become more liberal? After all, you could also say that the current system over represents the groups that care enough to vote, at the expense of those who do not vote. (Comparison here would be against the "?ideal democracy" where every person spoke up and decisions were made by majority opinion.)
By that standard, these groups generally get power disproportionate to their numbers: the elderly, the educated, those over 45, non-Hispanic whites, and veterans.
It seems to me that the US democracy works just about right, since we generally get leaders who reflect the nature of the average American citizen. (As in: shallow, short term outlook, out for themselves, pushy to the point of aggressiveness, not that good at understanding other people's perspectives, etc.) Since we live in a democracy, wouldn't it make sense to either work to change the nature of the citizenry, or to move to a place that better reflects our nature -- as opposed to essentially gerrymandering to get the outcome we want?
-
simar.. I have always moved to places where the busybodies leave me alone more.. the problem is that in this modern age.. it is increasingly difficult to escape laws that are meaningless to the rural person. The caged rats in the city see things in a 180 degree different way than the rural dwellers.. there is even a movement (using the environment as an excuse) to make it impossible to live in the country.
I will not see this one come to be I don't think.. I will live out my life long before orwells 1984 happens.. perhaps it never will... perhaps the very real and very large rift between red and blue will cause a revolution of a kind or.. the pendulum will just swing back.
I will weather it out in any case.
Perhaps we will not have to choose between the lesser of two evils much longer. or.. we could just have more creeping socialism and phony environmental activism till everyone is boxed up and under control of a huge government.
either way.. I will be fine and not have to participate. Move out a little and it will be 30 years before they start looking at me.. I will be fine while they are picking you guys bones clean.
lazs